Strike Three: MRC's Latest Attack On NewsGuard Again Filled With Bias, Shoddy Work Topic: Media Research Center
For the third year in a row, the Media Research Center has issued a so-called study purporting to attack NewsGuard as having a political bias against right-wing websites. And unsurprisingly, it's as loud and lame as the firsttwo. Jiseph Vazquez huffed in a Dec. 12 post:
Internet traffic cop NewsGuard has gotten worse. A new MRC Free Speech America analysis shows the notorious leftist media ratings organization is more biased against the right than ever before.
MRC Free Speech America investigated NewsGuard for a third year in a row, finding that its 0/100 ratings scale has once again overwhelmingly favored left-leaning outlets over right-leaning ones. “NewsGuard is just another leftist group trying to censor conservatives,” said MRC President Brent Bozell. “We have the proof.”
Using the media list provided by AllSides that classifies publications based on their “right” to “left” bias, MRC researchers determined that NewsGuard provided a stellar average “credibility” rating of 91/100 for “left” and “lean left” outlets (e.g. The New York Times, The Washington Post, TIME, Vox). At the same time, it dinged “right” and “lean right” outlets like Fox News, the New York Post and The Daily Wire with an outrageously abysmal average score of 65/100.The latest analysis denotes a 26 point disparity.
NewsGuard’s rating for right-leaning outlets in particular was worse than the still-low 66/100 average rating it slapped on right-leaning media across the prior two MRC studies released Jan. 6, 2023 and Dec. 13, 2021.
First of all, AllSides is a right-leaning organization that promotes the MRC's work, so its list is a bit suspect, given how it places most mainstream media outlets on the "left" side of the ledger and still lists Newsweek as in the "center" despite its undeniable move to the right. And of course, the disparity in group scores is not, in and of itself, evidence of bias, and Vazauez makes little attempt to prove that it is. Indeed, he follows that by rehashing old grievances about how the media handled Hunter Biden's laptop (ignoring that the New York Post did not offer any independent corroborating evidence to prove the laptop's authenticity, making it easy for non-right-wing media to dismiss the story as an October surprise by a pro-Trump rag) and complaining yet again that "NewsGuard still gives leftist outlet BuzzFeed a perfect 100/100 score despite the expired site continuing to host the widely discredited Steele dossier (ignoring the fact that BuzzFeed never claimed the dossier was accurate).
Vazquez's unprofessional bias is splayed throughout his so-called study, such as when he ranted about "NewsGuard’s perfect scores for blatantly liberal outlets like the explicitly left-wing New York Times"; by contrast, he refused to identify the New York Post as "blatantly conservative" and "explicitly right-wing." He also portrayed coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and related protests over it as being between "anti-Iksrael media" and "right-leaning media" -- a ridiculous comparison -- going on to whine that non-right-wing media coverage didn't adhere to right-wing narratives. That's another sign this is a political hit job, not a serious piece of "media research."
Vazquez also gave right-wing outlets space to complain about their relatively low ratings -- but he offered few specific examples to explain why they were so low. He did cite one instance, though, which comes off as whiny nitpicking (prefeaced by more whining):
The Heritage Foundation, one of the most prominent think tanks in the U.S. also received NewsGuard’s ire, getting hit with a 69.5/100 score. “The political hacks from NewsGuard claim they’ll help you decide what news outlets you can trust. In reality, you shouldn’t trust anything from this overtly biased organization,” said The Heritage Foundation Communications Director Rob Bluey. “Thanks to MRC, we now have proof that left-leaning outlets fare better than their conservative counterparts.”
One of NewsGuard’s nonsensical quibbles was The Heritage Foundation’s repudiation of the $80 billion earmarked in Biden’s extremist $749 billion Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) towards hiring 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service “agents.” NewsGuard split hairs by arguing that the onerous Biden bill simply allows the IRS to hire “86,852 full-time employees — not all audit agents, as the article suggested.” The headline of The Heritage Foundation’s article was “Fact-Checking Team Biden on Who Those 87,000 New IRS Agents Would Audit,” but NewsGuard didn’t disclose that The Heritage Foundation did note in its piece how “Calculations conservatively assume that only 57.3% of the Treasury Department’s estimated 86,852 new IRS agents (49,754 in total) would be assigned to enforcement.” In other words, The Heritage Foundation did specifically note that not all of the new “agents” would serve in auditing functions.
Of course, the fact that Vazquez referred to the Inflation Reduction Act as "extremist" further shows his disqualifying bias. He does seem to hint that Heritage showed its own inaccuracy in referring to "87,000 New IRS Agents" in the headline, but the article continued to refer to all 87,000 as "agents" throughout, and no evidence is provided to back up its alleged "calculations" about which new hires would be doing what.Further, that statement didn't appear until theh 13th paragraph and wasn't mentioned at all in the bullet-point "key takeaways" at the top of the piece, further showing the shoddiness of Vazquez's defense.
Vazquez, however, failed to discuss how Fox News was exposed as knowingly lying to its viewers about election fraud thorugh evidence released in the Dominion lawsuit -- resulting in a $787 million settlement with Dominion -- and how that blatant dishonesty may have affected its NewsGuard score. He was also silent about how Fox News quietly deleted a false story about a Gold Star family purportedly having to pay for a soldier's remains to be returned to the U.S. after being killed in Afghanistan without issuing a public retraction or apology. Instead, he defended Fox News by portraying its reporting on an incident involving the bombing of a hospital in Gaza to be "much more accurate" than the purportedly "anti-Israel" media. If Vazquez can't even bring up the biggest news-fraud story of the year, it shows how worthless this "study" is.
Vazquez refused to give NewsGuard an opportunity to respond to any of his bad-faith partisan attacks. He closed by rehashing his earlier screed demanding that NewsGuard not receive any federal contracts -- again showing the manufactured hit-job nature of his so-called study.
Meanwhile, what better place to promote such a wildly biased and flawed study than on the very accuracy-challenged right-wing outlets it's defending? That's what MRC chief Brent Bozell did in running to Fox Business, as Luis Cornelio dutifully transcribed in a Dec. 13 post:
MRC President and Founder Brent Bozell delivered a scorching rebuke of self-anointed internet traffic cop NewsGuard following the release of another report exposing the media ratings firm’s extreme leftist bias.
Speaking to Fox Business host Stuart Varney on Wednesday, Bozell highlighted an MRC Free Speech America report that exposed NewsGuard’s ratings as being disproportionately harsher to right-leaning media. “You've got this group … that calls itself, ‘objective,’” Bozell said of Newsguard, which gave left-leaning media an average credibility rating of 91 percent, while rating right-leaning media only an average of 65 percent.
Bozell ripped the legacy media for decades of tilted coverage under the guise of objectivity. “For years and years and years, the media has been telling the American people that they were objective,” Bozell told Varney on Varney & Co. The reality, Bozell warned, “They were left wing.”
Bozell blasted NewsGuard as a “new way to attack conservatives.” Indeed, MRC released a scathing report — for the third year in a row — that found NewsGuard provides consistently better ratings to leftist media on average while generally slapping down the scores of right-leaning media.
One can assume Varney and Bozell did not discuss how Fox News trashed its reputation for objectivity and accuracy by lying to its viewers. Meanwhile, MRC executives Tim Graham and Dan Schneider ran to Newsmax to spout the same talking points, transcribed in a Dec. 14 post by Catherine Salgado:
MRC’s Dan Schneider joined Newsmax to highlight explosive MRC research on how ratings firm NewsGuard has become more biased than ever.
For the third year in a row, MRC Free Speech America exposed NewsGuard’s worsening bias against right-leaning media. MRC researchers used the AllSides Media Bias Chart to analyze that NewsGuard provided a stellar average “credibility” rating of 91/100 for “left” and “lean left” outlets while slapping a low average of 65/100 on “right” and “lean right” outlets. MRC Free Speech America Vice President Schneider and NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham went on Newsmax’s The Chris Salcedo Show to discuss NewsGuard’s real goals: choking off right-leaning media’s ad revenue and promoting leftist narratives.
Schneider began, “NewsGuard, for years, has been silencing conservatives, directing ad revenue to liberals instead, choking off the life blood of conservative media outlets.” Schneider analyzed how NewsGuard’s gambit to silence the right was based on its overarching “zeal to defeat Donald Trump and any other conservative who wants to stand for basic American principles.”
Similarly, Graham and Schneider did not bring up how Newsmax is currently being sued by both Dominion and Smartmatic for the false claims it made about those companies in promoting falsehoods about election fraud in 2020.
Salgado concluded by whining that "NewsGuard targets free speech — it is not an objective arbiter of truth," despite the fact that none of the MRC's partisan attacks actually prove this beyond its empty right-wing ranting.
Newsmax Columnist: Sure, Trump Would Be A Dictator ... Like George Washington And The Romans Topic: Newsmax
With the 2024 U.S. presidential election fast approaching and Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in the polls, the media's hysteria is reaching astronomical levels.
The Economist Magazine recently named Trump as the biggest danger facing the world in 2024, while The New York Times and Washington Post breathlessly warn that he is running on a nakedly authoritarian platform.
Of course, authoritarianism, like so many other such terms these days has been rendered all but meaningless, as it now simply describes anything the political left opposes, or which threatens their power.
But as evidence, the media cites Trump's plans to mass deport illegal immigrants, reshape the federal bureaucracy, lock up violent criminals and deranged lunatics, and teach patriotism again in American schools.
[...]
Furthermore, despite the media's characterization, what Trump is proposing is hardly out of line with past American leaders, including those enshrined upon Mount Rushmore.
The father of the nation himself, George Washington, would likely have handled today's mass illegal immigration much in the way that Trump is proposing with large scale deportations, as indeed did another great American general turned president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Nor is what Trump is proposing unlawful; to the contrary, much of what he seeks is merely the enforcement of existing laws, which the current administration refuses.
But given the growing direness of the situation, there is also a significant segment of Americans today that view more extraordinary measures as necessary and warranted to correct the madness destroying their great nation.
In that respect, there are those that do perhaps desire for Trump to become a dictator, though in the original Roman sense.
When Rome was gravely threatened, it would empower a single individual, a "dictator" to assume full powers to set things right again.
This emergency lever was pulled when the usual political mechanisms, much like today, proved inadequate.
It also came with an expiration date, a set term, after which the appointed dictator had to step down and relinquish his powers.
In a sense, that is precisely what Trump is offering Americans.
Four years to clean up America; four years without the restraints of running for reelection; four years of not being beholden to outside donors or special interests; four years to simply do what needs to be done to address the nation's problems.
After which like the ancient Roman Cincinnatus, Trump would retire into the sunset, and a long well-deserved rest at Mar-a-Lago with the blessing of a grateful nation.
It's an attractive offer to many and one given how closely America was patterned after Rome that is not without some precedent.
MRC's Toto Loves Celebrities Spouting Right-Wing Views -- But Attacks Those Who Deviate From The Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
Despite the fact that right-wingers regularly lecture their followers to ignore celebrities talking about politics, Christian Toto gave a platform to one in his Nov. 11 Media Research Center column:
No one held Gavin Newsom’s feet to the fire quite like Adam Carolla did a decade ago.
The podcaster grilled the future governor repeatedly during their 2013 exchange, turning every Newsom comment on its head in real time.
And no one will ever repeat the feat. Why?
Gov. Newsom knows better than to sit behind “The Adam Carolla Show” microphones again. He’d rather wear a red MAGA hat and play 18 holes with the 45th president.
Plus, no mainstream reporter will do what Carolla did. The news media supports both Newsom and his fellow Democrats.
None of that stopped Carolla from slamming Newsom for his revisionist history over the recent pandemic.
Carolla stopped by “The Megyn Kelly Show” for a fiery hour-plus conversation. The two explored Hamas’ defenders, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ BootGate and more.
Toto didn't mention that the interview -- done when Newsom was lieutenant governor of California and was promoting a new book -- also included Carolla going on a racially tinged tirade arguing that there was somenthing "flawed" about blacks and Latinos because many don't have checking accounts or ATM access, going on to blame the problem on the usual right-wing shibboleth of single-parent households. Instead, Toto touted how Carolla pushed old right-wing grievances about pandemic lockdowns, cheering that Carolla called Newsom "a sociopathic, tyrannical dictator and no one should listen to a God-d*** word this idiot says.”
But even a celebrity repeating right-wing talking points gets attacked if there's not total and absolute fealty to the narrative.In his Nov. 25 column, Toto praised actress Juliana Marguiles for speaking out against anti-Semitism in a USA Today op-ed, yet attacked her anyway because she also said "I jump at the chance to march in Black Lives Matter protests":
Full stop.
Let’s set aside how the “mostly peaceful” BLM protests caused billions in property damage.
Does Margulies realize how some Black Lives Matter groups responded to the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks?
[...]
Can’t Margulies and one of the largest newspapers in the country see why name-checking BLM in this article is a profoundly bad idea?
Another explanation? Neither Margulies nor the USA Today editors knew about BLM’s ghastly affection for Hamas. The BLM Chicago image generated some media attention, but a Google News search for those key words show most mainstream news organizations ignored the shocking news story.
It’s inexcusable either way.
Toto seems not to understand that there's no overarching Black Lives Matter organization -- it's a decentralized movement -- that issues unified messaging, let alone one that ordered protesters cause property damage, as he appears to insinuate; indeed, he offers no evidence that any person convicted of property damage was acting on BLM orders.
Toto is simply repeating lazy right-wing talking points instead of doing any sort of research to see if they have any basis in fact. One might call that inexcusable.
Toto did find a celebrity who was fully on message the following week, however, devoting his Dec. 2 column to cheering actress Mayim Bialik for criticizing women's organizations for being siient on alleged atrocities being committed in the war between Israel and Hamas.
What any of this has to do with Toto's supposed main job of reviewing movies is anyone's guess, other than him desperately trying to parlay that arguably lightweight endeavor into becoming a right-wing pundit.
WND's Zumwalt Raged Over Removal Of Confederate Monument At Arlington Cemetery Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist James Zumwalt has been fretting over the impending removal of a Confederate monument in Arlington National Cemetery for a while how. He huffed in a March 29 column:
With wokeism protesting any memorialization of those who fought for the Confederacy during our American Civil War, a magnificent memorial in Arlington National Cemetery is, like the Buddhas of Bamiyan, being slated for demolition. More than a century old, the 32-foot-high Confederate Memorial was enthusiastically promoted by an earlier Congress, three U.S. presidents and veterans on both sides after the conflict. It was specifically embraced to symbolize a unified America in the aftermath of the War Between the States.
The Confederate Memorial was actually the brainchild of Union veteran and U.S. President William McKinley; it was President William Howard Taft who spoke at the laying of its cornerstone; and it was President Woodrow Wilson who spoke at its 1914 dedication, alongside both Union and Confederate veterans. Almost half a century after a war that had so divided America, claiming 750,000 lives and the maiming of over a million more, this memorial recognized a nation's reconciliation and reunification.
Designed and constructed by Confederate veteran and internationally renowned Jewish sculptor Moses Ezekiel, he, along with three other Southerners, lie buried at the monument's base, thus serving as their headstone. It is a grave marker also for 462 other Confederates whose graves are arranged in concentric circles around it. Such a burial arrangement is an integral part of the memorial, exactly as Congress, three presidents and veterans from both sides intended.
Those today planning the memorial's destruction lack any appreciation for the emotions at play in 1914 or for the artistic value it offers. Hypocritically, woke activists, demanding those who fought for the South more than seven generations earlier be banned to the dustbin of history for failing to grasp 21st century values, fail to grasp the emotional needs existing in 1914 to honor all who served to help reunify a divided nation. They are committed to the memorial's destruction at a cost of over $100 million.
As we pointed out when fellow WND columnist Carole Hornsby Haynes tried to defend the memorial, the cemetery's own website states that "The elaborately designed monument offers a nostalgic, mythologized vision of the Confederacy, including highly sanitized depictions of slavery," and that the only two African-American figures are stereotypical -- a "mammy"-type figure and an enslaved man following his owner to war. Zumwalt's evidence that the removal would cost "over $100 million" was a tweet by a pro-monument group that said nothing about cost.
As the removal date drew near, Zumwalt spent his Dec. 8 column lashing out at Sen. Elizabeth Warren for supporting the removal and other signs of needlesslyu honoring the Confederacy:
Unless a federal judge takes the appropriate action, on De. 18 the demolition of the 109-year-old Confederate Reconciliation Memorial located at Arlington National Cemetery will begin.
The word "reconciliation" was included in the memorial as it was the intention of our 25th U.S. president, William McKinley, and his peers who had fought on the side of the Union to demonstrate the post-Civil War healing of war wounds with those who had fought for the Confederacy. The country had suffered an ideological split during that conflict but, like a bad marriage in which the parties separated only to realize later they needed each other and returned to their union, the memorial was commissioned as a testimonial to the reconciliation of North and South.
As has been reported, the destruction of the memorial, "will desecrate the graves of almost 500 Confederate soldiers and family surrounding the memorial in concentric circles who, by 1901 law, are American soldiers entitled to the same respect and dignity as any American soldier who has ever lived." In the mind of Sen. Warren, honoring those who fought for the South is insensitive as they should eternally be condemned for having honored the institution of slavery. This is contrary to the sentiment of McKinley who observed, "Every soldier's grave made during our unfortunate civil war is a tribute to American valor."
As the cemetery's website also suggested, the word "reconciliation" in the memorial's name is meaningless because it was not accompanied by the granting of civil rights to black people. Zumwalt then tried to engage in a little Civil War revisionism:
Warren and Austin ride their high horses trumpeting slavery as the main focus of the war, but such trumpeting demonstrates a lack of understanding about history and about what caused those on both sides to fight. At war's end 17 senior commanders – nine from the North and eight from the South – gave farewell addresses to those who had served under them. Those addresses were assembled in "The Last Words" – a book authored by historian Michael R. Bradley – a work that clearly destroys slavery as the "single cause myth." While the moral issue of slavery has long been given as a common explanation for why the American Civil War was fought, it was the economics of slavery, along with political control of that system and states' rights, that were mainly responsible.
Actually, several Confederate states specifically cited slavery as a reason for leaving the Union in their secession statements. Still, Zumwalt huffed that "Warren will never understand the bond of respect, despite the ideological differences, that existed between North and South."
Zumwalt used his Dec. 20 column to dishonestly liken the removal of the Confederate memorial to the Taliban's destruction of centuries-old Buddha statues carved into a rock face in Aghanistan's Bamilan Valley:
Twenty-two years after the Bamiyan Massacre by the Taliban, the U.S. is on the verge of committing its own massacre that will eradicate an important part of our history. In fact, had it not been for a last-minute restraining order issued by a federal judge, that massacre would now have been completed.
The architect of this massacre is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who proclaimed during her failed presidential campaign she supported removing all Confederate symbols from federal land if she were elected. Fortunately, she had to drop out of her campaign, but that did not deter her from seeking the eradication of any honors bestowed upon Confederate veterans that were memorialized upon federal lands. She sponsored legislation in 2020 to this end, which was later passed with the help of 41 Republican House members who apparently were more concerned about elections than our history.
Zumwalt then tried an appeal related to the sculptor:
Interestingly, the architect the war victors engaged to design the memorial was noted sculptor Moses Jacob Ezekiel – a Confederate veteran and the first Jewish graduate of Virginia Military Institute. One would think there should currently be some sensitivity to the appropriateness of removing this historic memorial by a respected Jewish architect due to the astonishing wave of antisemitism triggered by the Gaza war. Of course, this appears to be of no concern to Warren as she recently criticized Facebook for censoring pro-Hamas posts.
In fact, Ezekiel's descendants have endorsed the removal of the sculpture, pointing out that it's "a relic of a racist past," and that it should be put in a museum "that makes clear its oppressive history.” Nevertheless, Zumwalt continued to smear Warren as Taliban-like for wanting to address oppressive history:
Warren and the Taliban obviously drink from similar glasses of ideological extremism. The Taliban's contains an elixir of religious zeal that blinds them from accepting any culture and religion other than their own. Meanwhile, Warren's contains an elixir of progressivism, blinding her to the destructive impact she will have on our history. Sadly, she denies veterans who served on both sides during our Civil War the memorialization in history they sought in honor of America's reunification in the aftermath of that divisive conflict.
A few days later, the bronze section of the monument was removed from its pedestal and his currently in storage as its ultimate fate is decided.The granite base will remain in place to avoid disturbing graves.There is still no evidence that the removal cost the $100 million Zumwalt claimed it would.
MRC Keeps Up Loud And Lame War Against NewsGuard Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's loud and lame war against NewsGuard has continued apace. Joseph Vazquez wrote a Nov. 21 screed demanding that NewsGuard be barred from government contracts, regurgitating his employer's bogus claim that NewsGuard is "biased" against right-wing media:
Leftist internet traffic cop NewsGuard is the farthest thing from being the unbiased media referee it purports to be. It is a government-funded operation designed to attack right-leaning media by going after their advertiser funding.
There are at least five core reasons why Congress should strip funding from NewsGuard in the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) since it received a $750,000 federal grant from the Department of Defense. The state funding of a leftist, so-called journalism gatekeeper that deceptively bills itself as “apolitical” is case in point. Such efforts by the government to censor media it does not approve of through the funding of a private organization is on its face unconstitutional. Moreover, NewsGuard’s inherent bias against right-leaning media and rubber-stamping of left-wing publications, its financing by special interests that compromise its objectivity, its apparent legitimization of communist Chinese government propaganda and its open celebration of its collusion with government make it little more than an Orwellian Ministry of Truth of the first magnitude.
Couple all that with the MRC’s analysis across two studies on NewsGuard’s media ratings and “Nutrition Labels” showing how the so-called media ratings firm is nothing more than a leftist political tool intended to silence the right and the problem becomes all too clear. It’s time for America’s legislators to finally take action.
Vazquez went on to screech "five core reasons why Congress should ensure that NewsGuard doesn’t receive another cent in taxpayer dollars" that rehashed many of its old, lame attacks, then bizarre=ly claimed that it's unconstitutional for it to get funding:
In particular, the government is prohibited from censoring speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. These are basic, obvious, principles which the Biden administration has blatantly disregarded in its unlawful arrangement with NewsGuard, under contract to do the dirty work of government censorship.
An even more fundamental maxim is that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Biden administration and its minions at NewsGuard are violating constitutional rights; this needs to be stopped.
Vazquez failed to explain what constitutional right protects liars and misleaders or why it is "unlawful" to point out those who lie and mislead, nor did he detail why it is "unconstitional" to do so. He went on to whine that NewsGuard identified those who spread misinformation about COVID and its vaccines, alleging a conflict of interest because it has received funding from a group in which one participant received funding from vaccine-maker Pfizer:
The [Washington] Times noted that The Daily Sceptic, another publication whose skepticism of vaccines drew the ire of NewsGuard’s web traffic monitors, got its score dinged down to a failing 37.5/100. “The site gets 1.8 million views every month, [Daily Sceptic Editor-in-Chief Toby] Young said, but its advertising has dried up since NewsGuard’s blacklisting.” NewsGuard’s “Nutrition Label” for the site updated Aug. 23, 2023, also openly defended Pfizer without disclosing the apparent conflict of interest.
You don't have work for NewsGuard to know that the Daily Sceptic, a British website, is unreliable -- others have documented the false and misleading COVID-related claims it has made, and Media Bias Fact Check called the website "a far-right biased quackery level pseudoscience website that frequently publishes false and misleading information regarding covid-19 and science in general." In short, Vazquez is dishonestly trying to give credibiliy to a thoroughly discredited conspiracy site, claiming that he merely offers "skepticism of vaccines" when it actively lies to and misleads readers.
Vazquez also rehashed an old complaint that NewsGuard rated "Chinese state propaganda to be more credible than American publications" but, of course, is devoid of any details surrounding that claim, including tyhe fact that one of the right-wing webistes he tried to defend, Newsmax, is currently being sued by Dominion and Smartmatic over false claims it made about election fraud after the 2020 eleciton. He concluded by ranting: "Why would the federal government proceed to continue funding any outfit that considers communist agitprop to be more credible than U.S. media?" He didn't explain why known liars and misleaders deserve better rankings simply for being American, and he didn't prove that any of those sites deserved to be treated as credible by anyone outside his right-wing bubble.
Luis Cornelio also uncritically peddled the corporate line in a Nov. 22 post:
Members of the Free Speech Alliance and pro-free speech allies are calling on Congress to once and for all ensure that the Biden administration is prohibited from unconstitutionally funding Ministry of Truth operations like leftist internet traffic cop NewsGuard.
MRC and others signed the four-page letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), urging congressional leaders to keep Rep. Richard McCormick (R-GA)’s free speech amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The amendment effectively bars the Department of Defense from contracting and funding infamous leftist tech entities like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) which are intent on crushing right-leaning media entities.
Signed by 36 pro-free speech advocates, the letter drew attention to disturbing revelations miring both NewsGuard (which received a $750,000 payout from the Department of Defense in 2021) and GDI which is also funded by government entities, including the Department of State.
Like Vazquez, Cornelio failed to back up his claim that NewsGuard is "leftist" with any sort of credible evidence.
Unsurprisngly, the letter begins with the dishonest statement that "Our federal government never should have spent time and taxpayer money on censoring conservatives," despite a complete lack of proof that anyone is "censoring" conservatives solely for being conservative or even that NewsGuard is doing the purported censoring.
The list of signatories includes a little corporate padding -- not only is it signed by MRC chief Brent Bozell, he's joined by Dan Schneider of MRC division Free Spoeech America and Bozell's son David, who operates the meme factory ForAmerica out of the MRC's headquarters. It also includes representatives of a few low-reliability right-wing outlets: One America News Network, ConservativeHQ and the Western Journal. Also, Brigitte Gabriel (not her real name) of the anti-Muslim ACT for America is for some reason identified as "Lady Brigitte Gabriel."
Newsmax Still Being A Good Benefactor To Rudy Giuliani Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has been a staunch supporter of Rudy Guiliani -- even starting a legal defense fund for him and giving him his own show on Newsmax's streaming channel -- and it continues to have his back even as he continues to ruin his life by running his mouth. A Nov. 10 column by Mark Schulte, for instance, played the Giuliani greatest-hits card:
Since the recent Newsmax interview with the indomitable Republican fighter Rudy Giuliani occurred 30 years after his election as mayor on November 2, 1993, in which he narrowly unseated the serially incompetent Democratic Mayor David Dinkins (I voted for Rudy), a recounting of several of the former mayor’s greatest achievements is timely.
Between Jan. 1994 and Jan. 2002, Mayor Giuliani made the nation’s largest city great again, as annual murders plunged a phenomenal 66%, between Dinkins’ last year in office in 1993 when there were 1,927, and Giuliani’s last year in 2001, with 649.
[...]
During Giuliani’s first term between 1994 and 1997, murders averaged 1,123, or a remarkable 46% decline.
Former Mayor Giuliani’s second historic achievement is the city’s robust 9% population growth, between 1990 when it was 7,323,000, and the 8,008,000 in 2000.
By contrast, NYC’s population in 2022 was 8,336,000, or a puny 4% increase in 22 years.
[...]
Rudy Giuliani’s third historic accomplishment occurred in 1995, when he evicted arch-Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat from a Lincoln Center concert, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the U.N.
Unquestionably, Rudy Giuliani ranks as one of NYC’s greatest mayor during the last century, alongside Fiorello La Guardia (1934-1945), whose mother, Irene Luzzatto-Coen, hailed from a prominent Sephardic Italian-Jewish family.
Newsmax has also given Giuliani ample space on its TV channel to spout right-wing opinions about the issues of the day:
Note that a number of those involve Giuliani attacking Hunter Biden. That's because Hunter filed a lawsuit against Giluiani over his dissemination of the contents of Hunter's laptop. A Sept. 26 article by Jeffrey Rodack summarized the lawsuit. That was followed by an Oct. 4 TV appearance in which Giuliani not only whined about the lawsuit but touted his own lawsuit against President Biden because he said during a 2020 presidential debate that Giuliani was acting like a Russian pawn (whichNicole Wells promoted in an article earlier that day):
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, calling President Joe Biden the "biggest liar we've ever had in the White House" insisted on Newsmax that he must pay damages for referring to him as a "Russian pawn" during remarks made in the final 2020 presidential debate against then-President Donald Trump.
"I can calculate, honestly, millions of dollars in damage," Giuliani told Newsmax's Greg Kelly on Wednesday night about the lawsuit he filed against the president earlier in the day.
[...]
"[Trump's] Rudy Giuliani, he is being used as a Russian pawn," Biden said at the time. "He is being fed information that is Russian, that is not true."
Giuliani's lawsuit claims that Biden knew his remarks would discredit and marginalize the former mayor, who was a Trump attorney, and that Biden falsely depicted him "to our nation as a liar."
Of course, Giuliani ranted about Hunter too:
Giuliani's lawsuit comes after Hunter Biden filed a lawsuit against him and another attorney, claiming that they caused "total annihilation" of Biden's digital privacy regarding the laptop that was reportedly left at a Delaware repair shop.
"Now, here's how I know he was lying," said Giuliani. "We only had the solid proof of that recently, and that's because the FBI validated that hard drive back in December of 2019."
Giuliani's complaint about his reputation being besmirched by Biden is ironic given his enthusiasm for spreading malicious false claims about others. More on that soon.
Bob Unruh wrote in a Dec. 12 WorldNetDaily article:
It was the Guardian that reported some months ago that more than 40% of Americans "still do not believe that Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 president election."
And then it editorialized, "despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud."
Now, it appears, there's evidence.
According to a report from Rasmussen Reports, "more than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud."
President Trump long has charged that the election was rigged and stolen from him. Evidence that appeared after the fact suggests he's right, because of the undue influence of Mark Zuckerberg's $400-plus million given to officials who often used that extraordinary funding to recruit Joe Biden voters.
Further, the FBI decided to interfere in the election, with its warning to media companies to suppress accurate reporting on the scandals in the Biden family that were revealed in a laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a repair shop.
A subsequent polling suggested that interference alone could have cost President Trump the election.
Now, according to Rasmussen, a polling, in conjunction with the Heartland Institute, confirmed "21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child, while 78% say they didn’t."
The report continued, "Thirty percent (30%) of those surveyed said they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election. Nineteen percent (19%) of those who cast mail-in votes say a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf. Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. All of these practices are illegal, Heartland Institute officials noted."
In addition to failing to accurately point out that both Rasmussenn and the Heartland Instituteare right-wing organizations whose biased results can't reasonably be trusted, Unruh ignored the nunerous holes in the study, as the Washington Post's Philip Bump pointed out when Trump similarly hyped it:
Yes, you read that correctly. The claim is that fully one-fifth of those who cast a mail-in ballot three years ago committed fraud. Where does this noncredible assertion originate? From Rasmussen’s purported survey of 1,085 “likely U.S. voters.”
Rasmussen has long offered results that skew more favorably to Republican candidates. (This is generally attributed to its focus on “likely voters,” a designation it defines that holds little meaning a year before an election.) In recent years, Rasmussen has fallen into the pugilistic pattern of so many other prominent voices on the right, elevating falsehoods about the 2020 election and, more disconcertingly, frequently conducting polls centered on “proving” rhetoric from the right-wing culture war.
[...]
This instantly fails the smell test. A fifth of voters said they voted in a state where they no longer live? About 6 in 10 Americans have never moved out of the states in which they were born. Half of the rest, we are meant to believe, committed an obvious form of election fraud three years ago.
Without, I’ll add, being detected by any authority or by any of the thousands of people who, eager to prove Trump right, have been looking for examples of fraudulent voting. Those professional and amateur sleuths have also somehow not found evidence showing that 1 in 12 absentee voters — millions of people! — were offered cash for their votes. This would seem like it might leave a trail.
Unruh also ignored the fact that, given Rasmussen's right-wing bias, the poll "suggests that a lot of this 'illegal' voting presumably resulted in ballots cast for Trump," as Bump also noted. Bump concluded: "To assume that there was rampant fraud because a partisan pollster generated numbers showing that an incredible — or rather, noncredible — number of voters 'remember' having done things that violate the law is ridiculous."
Also note that Unruh has embellished his falsely about money from a Mark Zuckerberg-funded foundation used to fund election operations in 2020 was "often used ... to recruit Joe Biden voters." Unruh offered no evidence that any of that money was specifically used to "recruit Joe Biden voters," let alone much of it, as he claims. In fact, any election office could have received the money, and indeed more Republican-dominated jurisdictions than Democratic-donimated ones accepted the money.
Unruh's investment in that lie continues to discredit WND.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC Lies To Stop Scrutiny Of Disinformation, Part 2 Topic: Media Research Center
Spearheading a falsehood-filled campaign to stop a proposed government "disinformation governance board" wasn't enough for the Media Research Center -- it continues to smear and lash out at the woman who was to run it. Read more >>
MRC Can't Stop Denying That Univision's Trump Interview Was A Puff Piece Topic: Media Research Center
When we last left off, the Media Research Center's Jorge Bonilla was trying to insist that Univision's softball interview of Donald Trump (which he won't admit it was) was a great thing -- but somehow also meaningless because he has to keep up the narrative of Univision being left-wing reprobates. But as the criticism of the softball interview continued to grow, other MRC writers felt the need to weigh in. Jeffrey Lord spent his Nov. 25 column complaining about the critics, with a dash of whataboutism:
The Hispanic network Univision is getting whacked by liberals. Why? Because they had the temerity to sit down for an interview with the former President of the United States who also happens to be the leading-by-a-lot candidate for the 2024 GOP nomination.
That would be, of course, Donald Trump.
[...]
Univision was created to model the left-leaning American broadcast networks. Which are nothing if not leftist propaganda machines. Univision was specifically designed, according to its ex-president, to be a Spanish-language version of those left-wing propaganda networks.
And now? Now the new leadership of Univision chose to arrange an interview with…..Republican former President Donald Trump. Ohhhhhh, the horror.
On top of which Blaya accuses Univision and Trump of spreading -- you guessed it -- propaganda. As if he's never watched an American network slobber over Barack and/or Michelle Obama.
[...]
It is not news to note that Democrats view the Hispanic community not as a diverse, thoughtful community but rather as the political property of progressives. In which contrary thought to the progressive mindset is not allowed. Univision, in that mindset, was built to be on the liberal plantation. And with this Trump interview the network had the audacity to step off of that plantation.
The all-American holiday season is now officially upon us. Serious politics will emerge once past the Christmas rush.
Lord ignored the fact that much of the criticism comes from the softball nature of the interview, not that it was done at all.
Bonilla returned for a Nov. 26 post whining that longtime Univision anchor Jorge Ramos pointed out the softball nature of the interview:
It was a matter of time before Univision senior anchor and Special Editorial Advisor to the CEO Jorge Ramos weighed in on the controversy surrounding Televisa’s interview of former President Donald Trump. And, in a manner similar to his own interactions with Donald Trump, he made it all about himself.
The Trump interview happened nearly three weeks ago, but the Ramos response ran on Ramos’ website during a holiday weekend. Was The New York Times pitched but not interested? Or did Ramos wait for the holiday to drop his column? Weird timing.
The column, titled “The Danger of Not Confronting Trump”, wastes no time in going to the heart of the matter, which is Jorge Ramos.
When Ramos pointed out that he has never interviewed Trump but was limited to asking a couple questions at a 2015 campaign stop in Iowa, Bonilla huffed that it was "a performative confrontation" -- as if Peter Doocy and other right-wing reporters don't do the same in the White House briefing room. Meanwhile, Bonilla still wouldn't admit that the crux of the issue was that it was a softball interview, and he again tried to insist that it means nothing to his designated anti-Univision narrative:
The media’s narrative surrounding the Televisa interview of Trump is not one of a corporate parent trying to restore balance to a property gone horribly wrong that has lost significant trust within its own viewing cohort, but of Univision’s brave struggle for editorial independence. But again, and so we’re crystal clear, by “independence” we mean the independence to remain a repository of Democrat [sic] talking points. Nothing else.
When actor John Leguizamo used a "Daily Show" segment to point out the softball nature of the interview, Bonilla again ignored that salient criticism and clung even harder to his Univision-is-evil narrative in another Nov. 26 post:
Leguizamo, who last made news by race-whining over actor John Franco’s casting as Fidel Castro, saw fit to post a video somewhere and call for a boycott of Univision over its deviation from its normal editorial standards, which is to be a reliable Democrat talking point regurgitator. And now, we suffer this obnoxious rant which aired on the desiccated husk of The Daily Show.
The media ran with Leguizamo’s initial video, oohing and aahing at these calls to counter an editorial shift THAT NEVER HAPPENED. There is no shift at Univision. There may be the perception of a shift, but there is no actual shift. And the fact that the media continue to amplify denunciations of a nonexistent shift means that none of these people that supposedly care so much about Univision ever even watch Univision. In fact, the Venn diagram of people who saw Leguizamo’s dopey rant and watch Univision regularly is two circles, a thousand miles apart. The woke anglos in the studio whooped and hollered, but no one who might actually be affected by an editorial shift at Univision actually saw any of this nonsense.
In the end, this is just a tantrum meant to create the illusion of an editorial shift. Don’t believe the hype of a shift unless Jorge Ramos and President of News Daniel Coronell either tender their resignations or are the subjects of a press release wishing them all the luck in their future endeavors.
Bonilla was still cranking out performative outrage at anyone daring to point out the softball Trump interview. He played whataboutism in a Dec. 4 post:
There’s been a lot of recent Acela Media and Professional Latinx outrage over 2024 presidential candidates doing what they perceive to be softball interviews with Spanish-language media. Case in point, the kerfuffle over former President Donald Trump’s interview with TelevisaUnivision. Not surprisingly, they don’t share the same concern for President Joe Biden’s interview with a radio network owned and operated by the foundation previously overseen by his campaign manager.
[...]
This interview of Joe Biden aired just before Thanksgiving on a radio network owned and operated by the family of his campaign manager, as the left were still in full meltdown mode over the Trump-Univision interview. This whining is not about “disinformation”, but about the left’s perceived loss of monopoly power and control over what Spanish-dominant audiences see and hear as news content.
Note that Bonilla still refuses to admit the Trump interview was softball-laden, conceding only that it was "perceive to be" a softball interview (while ignoring that this perception is correct).
When Univision President of News Daniel Coronell defended the Trump interview, Bonilla hyped it another Dec. 4 post (while, of course, still clinging to the corporate anti-Univision narrative):
Coronell defends both the style and substance of an interview, and explains the history behind the interview. He explains Enrique Acevedo’s approach to the interview, which was to get full answers from Trump. Coronell also addresses the issue of Joe Biden’s ads.
The record reflects, with crystal clarity, that we are no fan of Coronell. Much of Univision’s descent into open partisanship happened under Coronell’s watch, and I don’t think that a one-shot interview with Trump will suddenly undo years of institutional decay. The left are making much ado about nothing.
The whole episode is a reminder that the left only care about having the power to decide what news and information Hispanics see and hear. The perceived loss of control, although having no basis in fact, is what triggered the left's manic outcry over this interview.
We publish Coronell’s remarks here because they are relevant to the controversy, they address critics’ concerns, and are therefore in the public interest. Furthermore, the Acela Media parachuting into this story wouldn’t even know where to begin to look for Coronell’s remarks. You’re welcome.
More than a month after the interview, Bonilla was still at it, this time raging in a Dec. 12 post at a New York Times article on the interview:
The idea that the onetime home of Walter Duranty should be taken seriously on anything pertaining to an editorial shift, or concern over an editorial shift at any other media outlet, is laughable. But, alas, here we are. The Old Grey Lady is the latest to weigh in on the Acela Media’s collective panic over Univision’s interview of former President Donald Trump specifically, and over a perceived editorial shift at Univision generally.
[...]
As with the other pieces, this article conveys the left’s sense of mourning over an ongoing Hispanic shift away from the Democrat Party. Is Univision’s shift real? As I’ve stated before, personnel is policy, and it’s hard to imagine Univision completely shifting to the center with the personnel that are currently in place- chief among them Jorge Ramos.
Univision’s so-called shift may come down to that old Michael Jordan proverb: “Republicans buy sneakers, too”. It turns out that they also buy ads.
Once more, Bonilla absolutely refused to admit the Trump interview was a puff piece and insisted that its existence doesn't change the anti-Univision narrative he's paid to spout.
Newsmax Still Parroting False And Biased Attacks Against NewsGuard Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax continued its parroting of right-wing attacks against website-rating service NewsGuard witha Dec. 9 article by Eric Mack featuring another right-wing outlet complaining that their shoddy work was called out:
The Biden administration could not get around the First Amendment in silencing dissent, but it has effectively found a way through the State Department paying NewsGuard to defund conservative media, according to a trio of researchers from the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).
The First Amendment is "is so clear that only a politician could manage to miss the point," AIER senior researchers Phillip Magness, James Harrigan, and Ryan Yonk wrote in the New York Post this week.
[...]
The Post and AIER have been targeted by NewsGuard — founded by Steven Brill, a Democrat activist and donor, in 2018. Newsmax has reported it has been, too.
NewsGuard's rankings have since been used by advertising agencies to target and block conservative media from obtaining advertising revenue.
The complaints from Mack and AIER are generalized as to subject but don't get too deep into specifics, suggesting that it's simply playing a partisan game rather than engaging in any sort of good-faith criticism.
A Dec. 13 article -- which was later deleted from the Newsmax website without explanation, though it lives in the Internet Archive -- featuring one of NewsGuard's most dishoenst critics, the Media Research Center (which posted its own version of the segment):
NewsGuard, the ensorship giant self-tasked with rating media outlets on reliability, has “for years been silencing conservatives, directing ad revenue to liberals instead,” said Dan Schneider, vice president of Media Research Center’s Free Speech America.
The biased company has been "choking off the life blood of conservative media outlets, all because of their zeal to defeat Donald Trump and any conservative that wants to stand for basic American principles," he told Newsmax.
“NewsGuard has one standard, that is defeat conservatives, promote liberals,” Schneider said Wednesday during an appearance on Newsmax TV’s “Chris Salcedo Show.”
Media Research Cente [sic] on Tuesday released a study that found that NewsGuard “overwhelmingly favored left-leaning outlets over right-leaning ones.”
Using AllSides, an organization that classifies media outlets by their “right” to “left” bias, “MRC researchers determined that NewsGuard provided a stellar average ‘credibility’ rating of 91/100 for ‘left’ and ‘lean left’ outlets (e.g., The New York Times, The Washington Post, TIME, Vox),” wrote MRC researchers. Meanwhile, “right” and “lean right” outlets, such as Fox News, the New York Post, and The Daily Wire, were given “an outrageously abysmal average score of 65/100.”
Schneider also criticized left-leaning news outlets for covering up the Hunter Biden probe “because he’s part of the Biden bribery scandal.”
“This is how Joe Biden and his family have been making money for a long time. And NewsGuard is covering for it. NewsGuard is not going to go back and re-rate all those media outlets that said the Hunter Biden laptop was a hoax. … Their bias is so extreme that the left is willing to give our taxpayer dollars, millions of our taxpayer dollars, to NewsGuard and other outlets just like it.”
Newsmax did not allow anyone from NewsGuard to respond to Schneider.
A Dec. 11 article by Mark Swanson hyped a Republican attack on NewsGuard:
House and Senate Armed Services committees last week concluded their negotiations on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Republicans have won a significant victory opposing woke censorship programs that impact Pentagon recruiting.
The Democrat-led Senate has agreed with Johnson’s demand the annual defense spending bill not allow Pentagon dollars to be spent with ad agencies that use "misinformation" media monitors.
Left-wing groups such as NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) have been used by major advertising agencies to block military recruitment ads on many conservative media outlets.
The new NDAA provision expressly prohibits any advertising agency the Defense Department contracts with from using services that engage in "determinations of misinformation."
The new law would also require the Pentagon to inform the House and Senate Armed Services committees any time the recruitment division directly contracts with NewsGuard, GDI or a similar entity.
Swanson did let NewsGuard respond -- though it took him three days to update his story to include that response -- but he continued to attack the group anyway, engaging in nitpicking over Hunter Biden's laptop:
In an email to Newsmax, NewsGuard disputed that it “was not a ‘vocal advocate’” of claims that the Hunter Biden’s laptop “represented Russia misinformation.”
However, the New York Post reported that NewsGuard CEO [Steve] Brill was a leader in declaring the Hunter Biden laptop story a “hoax.”
Also, NewsGuard’s board adviser, General Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA, was a principal advocate for asserting the laptop was Russian disinformation, and was one of 51 signatories to a now discredited letter made public in October 2020 making such a claim.
Despite the false claims about the laptop being a “hoax,” neither Brill nor NewsGuard has offered a retraction.
swanson offered no evidence that either Brill or Hayden were speaking on behalf of NewsGuard when they made those statement, and he failed to disclose that the New York Post offered no independent verification of the laptop at the time it introduced the story on it that would have addressed reasonable concerns about its authenticity.
Newsmax parroted the MRC again in a Dec. 14 article by Michael Katz:
NewsGuard, the left-wing media ratings group, continues to target conservative news outlets, a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC) finds.
In its annual review of NewGuard's rankings, an MRC Free Speech America study found that for the third year in a row NewsGuard continues to significantly outrank liberal and far-left news outlets over conservative ones.
"NewsGuard is just another leftist group trying to censor conservatives," MRC President Brent Bozell said in a statement. "We have the proof."
Note that Katz put a "left-wing" label on NewsGuard but no ideological label on the MRC despite its clear right-wing bias.
Katz did let NewsGuard repsond -- then let the MRC respond to the response:
"The analysis in question is highly flawed, relying on a cherry-picked sample of just 66 ratings out of more than 9,500 NewsGuard has issued, less than 0.7%.," NewsGuard's Matt Skibinski told Newsmax.
"In fact, NewsGuard's apolitical process has resulted in many conservative publications outscoring similar left-leaning publications and vice versa — for example, The Daily Caller outscores The Daily Beast, The Daily Wire outscores the Daily Kos, and FoxNews.com outscores MSNBC.com."
MRC told Newsmax that these "outscores" have not always reflected the rankings for conservative media like The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, and Fox News.
It also noted that outspoken conservative critics of NewsGuard, like Newsmax and The Federalist, have also been targeted for extremely low scores.
Neither Katz nor the MRC offered evidence that NewsGuard downgrades a media outlet solely for criticizing it. Swanson returned to tout another right-wing attack on NewsGuard in a Dec. 21 article:
Florida CFO Jimmy Patronis announced a consumer protection bill Thursday that would prevent state agencies from using taxpayer funds to contract with media censorship companies like NewsGuard.
Florida HB 939 mirrors similar federal legislation that moved to strike the Pentagon from contracting with advertising agencies that use NewsGuard to blacklist conservative publications.
"We've got state agencies throughout Florida trying to reach the public to provide critical services, and we need to make sure advertisers who partner with the state are doing their very best to reach the specific groups," Patronis said in the announcement.
"NewsGuard's technology, however, is working its way into the advertising world, and effectively blacklisting media outlets who don't measure up to their ratings."
The legislation comes on the heels of Patronis' letter to NewsGuard in March, warning then he would "not hesitate to use the full force of my office to shed light on the organization you're running."
Swanson is lying by calling NewsGuard a "media censorship companies," and later in the article he falsely called NewsGuard "far-left."
MRC Attacks Film On Mosque Arson, Still Won't Admit Islamophobia Exists Topic: Media Research Center
Fresh off effectively denying that Islamophobia exists, the Media Research Center wants to make a documentary about a arson at a Texas mosque about anything but the actual arson. Clay Waters complained in a Nov. 26 post:
The latest PBS Independent Lens film program, “A Town Called Victoria,” was a three-hour report on the January 2017 firebombing of the Victoria Islamic Center mosque in the small town of Victoria, Texas. Predictably, there was a deeper left-wing political message within this documentary, part of the “Exploring Hate” series by NYC-based public television station WNET.
[...]
Documentary director Li Lu tried the usual film-making moves, opening with an audio montage of former presidents mentioning Islam (like President G.W. Bush after 9-11). But she snuck in partisan and ideological jabs with her source seelction, going beyond the awful crime itself to score political points against President Trump or Republicans in general -- blaming Trump’s temporary ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim countries for the arson attack.
Waters whined that the film was allegedly "going beyond the awful crime itself to score political points against President Trump or Republicans in general -- blaming Trump’s temporary ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim countries for the arson attack" -- but he didn't mention the fact that the arson occurred literally just hours after Trump signed that ban, making it a reasonable point to bring up.
Waters went on to complain that the film portrayed the crime as an act of white supremacy even though a Latino man committed the arson, then took a couple irrelevant shots at longtime MRC target and Texas politician Beto O'Rourke:
Lu was much nicer to Democrats, like Sen. Cruz’s failed 2018 Democratic opponent Beto O’Rourke. Documentary star Omar Rachid introduced O’Rourke at a local rally.
Rachid: When asked if I would introduce Beto, I said, are you kidding me? I mean this is like a dream come true! And it gives me the microphone! Beto O'Rourke!
Rachid took Beto’s eventual loss hard, and petulantly blamed the anti-Muslim atmosphere among his neighbors before leaving town for good. Apparently not voting for a liberal Democrat with who's served just three terms in Congress makes one automatically anti-Muslim. (And Beto went on to lose a presidential bid, and a gubernatorial bid.)
What Waters didn't do, however, was condemn the arson in any meaningful way or explain the Islamophobic motivation of the perpetrator Marq Vincent Lopez, as federal prosecutors did:
Testimony at trial detailed how Perez conducted what he described as “recon” by breaking into the mosque a week before he set it on fire. Evidence presented at trial showed Perez communicated with someone through Facebook about breaking into the mosque a second time, the same night of the fire. A witness who was with Perez on the night of the fire described how Perez used a lighter to set papers on fire inside the mosque and how excited Perez was upon seeing the mosque in flames just minutes later.
The witness testified that Perez said that he burned down the mosque, because he wanted to “send a message.”
During the execution of a search warrant, federal agents recovered stolen property taken from the mosque the night of the fire in Perez’s home. Several witnesses at trial also testified about Perez’s animus towards Muslims and that he often used anti-Muslim slurs.
Of course, Waters and the MRC don't think Islamophobia exists, so these facts would have caused cognitive dissonance with their narratives -- which is why Waters chose to lash out at O'Rourke instead. Indeed, Waters' hit job was so sloppy that he couldn't even be bothered to get the name of the documentary right in the headline -- it's "A Town Called Victoria," not "A Town In Victoria," which doesn't even make sense.
WND Repeats Bogus Story That Photojournalists Embedded With Hamas Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymous WorldNetDaily writer dutifully parroted a conservatively correct narrative in a Nov. 8 article:
A new report about the images that came out of the Oct. 7 terror attack by Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians is raising questions about the actions of photographers apparently employed by AP, CNN, Reuters and the New York Times.
The charge is that the photographers were "EMBEDDED" with the Hamas terrorists.
They "accompanied the terrorist group into Israel. They knew the attack was coming and participated in it."
It is at Honest Reporting the details are spelled out.
"Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions," it explained.
[...]
A report from Pam Geller, commentator and activist, said, "We need war tribunals to prosecute these war criminal news orgs. The names of the photographers, which appear on other sources, have been removed from some of the photos on AP’s database. Perhaps someone at the agency realized it posed serious questions regarding their journalistic ethics."
One social media commenter said, of the positioning of the photographers alongside Hamas, "Yes, this is real."
But it wasn't. As we documented when the Media Research Center pushed this same claim, HonestReporting eventually admitted it had no evidence to back up its claim of embedding -- it was playing the "we're just asking questions" card. The news organizations accused of embedding all denied HonestReporting's claim as well.
Despite the fact that the story wasn't true, WND insisted on continuing to promote it anyway. Bob Unruh wrote in a Dec. 7 article:
Congress has begun investigating various media outlets that had reporters "embedded" with Hamas during the terror organization's attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
That was when terrorists, likely drugged up and with instructions to commit atrocities against Israeli civilians, did just that, beheading babies and burning entire families alive.
Further details revealed after the attack that killed an estimated 1,400 show that the terrorists raped both men and women, and murdered them in stunningly brutal fashion.
Having reporters embedded with an event is a common occurrence for media organizations, such as at protests, parades and such. But the legal and ethical questions of allowing reporters to knowingly accompany terrorists on a murder spree raise red flags the size of the state of Texas.
Unruh failed to tell readers that the claims were disproven and HonestReporting never had any evidence to back it up.
It's shoddy reporting like this that makes WND utterly untrustworthy.
MRC Defends Univision's Softball Interview Of Trump -- But Still Wants You To Believe Univision Is Still Liberal Topic: Media Research Center
A couple months back, Univision did an interview with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in which he faced no tough questions and was fawned over by interviewers. The Media Research Center's Jorge Bonilla spent a Nov. 10 post claiming to be shocked by the interview -- but, as a right-winger, the softball nature of it was a good thing ("totally normal," he called it in his headline), though it blew up his narrative that Univision has a liberal bias:
I sat down and watched TelevisaUnivision’s interview with former President Donald J. Trump, expecting fiery exchanges and contentiousness and I am in complete shock for there were no such things. Instead, viewers watched a calm, rational dialogue between Trump and Televisa N+ anchor Enrique Acevedo. And I can't quite figure out why.
[...]
This was the tone throughout the entire interview. History, too extensive to get into here, suggests that this should not have been the case. From the moment Trump descended the gilded escalator at Trump Tower, Univision (at the time not a wholly owned subsidiary of Mexico’s Televisa but owned by a private equity group headed by Hillary Clinton megadonor Haim Saban) set out to cast him as a monster, and depict him as such to their viewing audience. And this was the editorial course that Univision charted right up until they were bought out by Televisa in 2022.
I was always told, by sources within Univision, that the network wanted to pursue a different editorial tack so as to avoid being perceived as a foreign-owned Democrat talking point regurgitator. But the on-screen product never quite caught up to those lofty promises. Until tonight's apparent shift.
I was struck by the choice of anchor. Enrique Acevedo is no stranger to the MRC, and we’d covered him extensively both as Univision anchor and as 60 Minutes correspondent. He recently returned to Mexico, post-merger, and took over as anchor of Televisa’s prime time evening newscast. There were plenty of people at Univision HQ in Doral (OK, a handful) who could’ve done the interview but the choice of Acevedo intrigued me. I began to suspect that the whole op was run from Mexico City.
[...]
One thing to watch for going forward: will Trump (or Republicans in general) begin to garner different coverage on Univision, or is this a one-off for both Trump and Univision? And, if so, why?
Another thing: exactly how much “internal grumbling” is there within Univision’s news division, which has now been very publicly and visibly defenestrated?
In a Nov. 15 post, however, Bonilla was in narrative-salvaging mode, insisting that the softball interview (though he still won't call it that) was a one-off and that Univision is still as purportedly left-wing as ever:
One constant throughout my conversations with those who work in local media (particularly local media serving Hispanic communities) is the contemptuous tone reserved for the “parachute media”: that is, members of the elite Acela Media (“media reporters” and such) who “parachute” into a subject matter they know nothing about, fart out their reports, and then return to D.C. or New York. I’ve thought about that quite a bit as I consider the quality of reporting subsequent to Televisa’s interview of former President Donald Trump.
The common thread to emerge from coverage of the interview and subsequent reaction is that the interview is somehow representative of Univision shifting to the right. I assure you, this is the fakest of fake news.
[...]
One swallow does not a summer make, despite both the irrational exuberance of my MAGA friends and the irrational anguish of my friends on the left. One interview, planned and executed by Univision’s corporate parent, does not constitute a major editorial shift. But Acela “media journalists” unable to distinguish between Doral and Mexico City would have you believe that.
Univision has not shifted to the right, and is not suddenly willing to grant a fair hearing to conservatives. Univision is still the same corporate immigration client of the Democratic Party, and is as willing as ever to foist the rest of the leftwing policy pupu platter upon its viewers. That’s my assessment of the facts as they stand today. So long as [Univision anchor Jorge] Ramos and [Televisa news director Daniel] Coronell are in place and in charge, Noticias Univision will remain what it has always been- a reliable left-wing cesspool.
When former Univision anchor María Celeste Arrarás pointed out that the softball, unchallenging nature of the interview misleads voters, Bonilla chose in a Nov. 19 post to dishonestly frame that has her claiming that "Latinos are unable to view and process facts as presented to them, without media 'context' and 'nuance'":
Let me translate this for you. When she says “no matter how intelligent they are”, Arrarás really means that Hispanics are “not intelligent enough” to be trusted to analyze the news of the day for themselves, and therefore need it spoon-fed and filtered to them with a Democrat lens through approved gatekeeper institutions. Although one always suspects that the media have deep-seated contempt for their viewing public, it is nonetheless surprising to hear someone express that contempt out loud.
This is the main argument against the Televisa-Trump interview- this perceived loss of air supremacy on a cornerstone institution of the Latino Grievance Industrial Complex. What Arrarás is arguing for is for Spanish-language media to continue to alter the perceptions (and therefore, the reality) of their viewers; unchecked, unabated, and unopposed.
Arrarás’ bit on foreign undue influence is also hilarious, primarily because no one bothered to complain about “undue foreign influence” when Univision was out there doing all the disinformation on behalf of Democrats. But book ONE interview with Donald Trump and everyone loses their minds.
Funny how Bonilla was demanding balance when he claimed that Democrats were dominating Univision, but he wants no such balance for a softball Trump interview.
As people continued to question why Trump was given such a softball interview, Bonilla continued to whine about the complainers. He did that in condescending fashion in a Nov. 20 post:
As I’ve stated many times, the Latinx Grievance Industrial Complex is up in arms over the perceived (and, perhaps, imagined) loss of air supremacy on one of its cornerstone institutions- Univision. Which is how we end up with Ana Navarro, on The View, DEMANDING to know how and why this is happening.
After having to endure this segment, I’ve gained an even greater appreciation for our friend Nick Fondacaro, who watches this nonsense on a daily basis so you don’t have to. Anyway, heeeeeeere’s Ana:
[...]
Univision, a reliable Democrat talking point regurgitator for decades, is both a gatekeeper institution into the Latino community, as created and organized by the left, and an approved purveyor of information to the community. Thus, the Trump interview is seen as a major breach. Univision is perceived to have breached its fiduciary responsibility towards the rest of the Professional Political Latinx class, by having the temerity to allow Donald J. Trump to sit down with a journalist and answer questions in a normal, conversational tone.
This is the basis upon which Navarro, John Leguizamo, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, along with the rest of the Latinx Industrial Complex, have demanded that Univision reverse course and go back to being a reliable Democrat talking point machine- which it never stopped being in the first place. Had the shoe been on the other foot, these very groups would be denouncing these activities as a gross attack upon a free and independent press.
I use such words as “imagined” and “perceived” because there is no actual editorial shift at Univision, and no substance to the conversation beyond what I described in the previous paragraph. And so it is that we have to endure five minutes of the Viewteratti’s discourse on Univision- which, honestly, felt like five hundred.
Yes, Bonilla is still defending the softball interview while insisting it doesn't change his narrative. He did it again in a Nov. 21 post:
It’s the dopiest of dopey cycles, this Acela Media and Professional Latinx crusade against the most reliably left-wing outlet in all domestic news media, which is Univision. And yet, here we are. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has now joined the fray, and exposes the real rationale behind this attack against Univision.
Watch as Maddow reveals the truest, purest victim of a so-called “rightward shift” at Univision: Joe Biden’s electoral prospects.
[...]
This isn’t about “preventing disinformation”, because as we reported at the time, a study showed that Univision is one one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation to the Hispanic community. It isn’t about protecting freedom of the press, because the Acela Media and Professional Latinx are actively trying to interfere with Univision’s editorial decision making processes. Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Hispanic Censorship Caucus is now demanding to meet with Univision executives.
What this episode proves conclusively is that none of the people howling about Univision have never once sat down and actually watched Univision’s news product. If they did, MSNBC would promptly begin taking notes on how to leftwing bias harder.
Bonilla's professed concern about misinformation in Spanish-language media is rather cute, given that he was briefly employed by one of the biggest Hispanic media misinformers -- Americano Media, which tried to be the Latino Fox News until its financial collapse -- for a few months as a talk show host before returning to the MRC. And that "study" he cited was actually just a poll conducted by a right-wing Latino group.
(Tim Graham repeated Bonilla's complaints on his Nov. 22 podcast.)
Bonilla has made it clear that the only interviews with Republicans he wants to see are softball ones, even if he refuses to use that accurate term to describe what happened in the Univision interview.
WND's Schlafly Thinks Ballot Initiatives Are 'Mob Rule' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Right-wingers are all for people making decisions about their lives -- until they make decisions that don't adhere to right-wing narratives. Thus, we have Andy Schlafly spending his Nov. 14 WorldNetDaily column whining that ballot initiatives are "mob rule" in the wake of Ohio voters approving abortion rights:
The "will of the people," as expressed by outcomes of heavily funded ballot initiatives, is a canard that should be rejected by Republicans. Direct democracy was feared and opposed by our nation's founders, who established a representative government for the United States and guaranteed "a republican form of government" to each of its member states.
Yet Republican candidates who participated in last week's third presidential debate seemed to misunderstand this crucial point, as reflected by their senseless responses to questions about a recent ballot initiative that just passed in Ohio. Ron DeSantis, for example, unjustifiably blamed the pro-life movement for being "caught flat-footed" by Issue 1, the abortion initiative, without mentioning that God-given rights should not be decided by a popular vote.
Republicans should be defending representative government against misuse of the ballot initiative process, which allows out-of-state industries and liberal billionaires to pass laws contrary to the informed decision-making by each state's elected representatives. Ohio's Issue 1 will benefit the billion-dollar abortion industry, while Issue 2 will profit the expanding marijuana industry by invading Ohio with a predicted $4 billion worth of pot.
Schalafly went on to cheer how Republican politicians will deliberately ignore what the people want:
Fortunately, some members of the Ohio Legislature are rising up against this misuse of ballot initiatives to change the culture of the Buckeye State. Ohio's elected representatives should not take a back seat or bow down to ballot initiatives contrary to what has been the well-established tradition of Ohio and our Constitution.
The passage of the radical Issues 1 and 2 in Ohio are an assault by out-of-state industries and billionaires to transform the state, and its Republican-controlled General Assembly should strongly resist this invasion. Four out of five Republicans voted against Issues 1 and 2, and that is to whom the Republican legislators should be listening, rather than a multi-million-dollar barrage of television ads.
Legislators should not be deterred by chants in the media that "the people have spoken." Representatives exist to resist tyranny by a misled majority, and Republican officials should not abandon the pledges they campaigned on for the benefit of Ohio.
Schlafly didn't why Republicans should ignore the majority of Ohioans who supportted the bill. He then started getting nonsensical:
Caving in to ballot initiatives is a betrayal of representative government, and of voters themselves. By denying the rights of voters to elect representatives to protect their state's way of life, Republicans give residents an incentive to move to Texas and other states that prohibit mob rule through ballot initiatives.
[...]
More Midwesterners will inevitably respond by moving to Texas, where leftists are not allowed to override the legislature. But families in Ohio and Missouri should not have to move to protect their way of life.
If a ballot initiative has been approved by voters, taht means voters have spoken and haven't been "betrayed." He went on to try an advance the argument that people are too stupid to support their own interests and need politicans -- preferably right-wing ones -- to tell them what they need:
Republicans reject the call for a National Popular Vote to pick our president, and instead that office is filled by the Electoral College. Republican candidates for president should campaign on defending our republican form of government against the progressive strategy of direct democracy.
Our Declaration of Independence stands entirely against infringement on God-given rights by popular vote or by any other means. That timeless document describes the concept of unalienable rights as a "self-evident" truth, yet Trump's rivals for president seem to think everything is fair game for ballot initiatives.
Actually, the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, runs our country, and Schlafly offered no evidence tha the Constitution prohibits state ballot initiatives.
MRC's DeSantis Defense Brigade Watch, Gavin Newsom Edition Topic: Media Research Center We've shown how the Media Research Center's softball interview with Ron DeSantis in early November -- effectively an in-kind donation to his presidential campaign -- landed with such a thud that it basically ignored him for the rest of that month (even its very own DeSantisDefenseBrigade). The Brigade didn't come alive again until after DeSantis' Nov. 30 Fox News debate with Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. A Dec. 1 post by Curtis Houck served up the usual complaint that non-right-wing networks didn't sound like Fox News when talking about DeSantis:
Friday’s CBS Mornings did its best to all but ignore Thursday night’s fiery debate on the Fox News Channel between Governors Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Gavin Newsom (D-CA) by stashing it in the Eye Opener (which we at NewsBusters don’t formally account as most of it’s teases for segments), but the others stepped up to the plate with full stories on ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today.
They took different approaches, however, as ABC used three-time bestselling Trump author Jonathan Karl to trash Trump’s lead 2024 GOP primary opponent while NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker largely treated it like a substantive debate.
Karl began with the platitudes, boasting “it was billed as the red state versus blue state debate” and “preview[ing] perhaps of some of the issues, if not the candidates, we could see debated in next year's general election campaign.”
The professionalism ended there as Karl quickly dismissed the entire event and channeled both Newsom and DeSantis’s opponents, which made sense given how financially lucrative Trump has been for him in terms of book sales.
“At the start of the debate, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who isn’t running for president, taunted Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is running, but trailing badly with a reminder that neither of them would likely be on the ballot next fall,”“neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024.”
Karl briefly touched on the fact that each candidate represented their party’s message on the economy, but went back to trashing DeSantis, who took on his employer’s parent company, Disney.
Despite his insinuations, Houck offered no proof that Karl is a Disney lackey, nor did provide evidence that anything in Karl's Trump-related books is false.
Tim Graham used his Dec. 1 podcast to nitpick a fact-check of the debate:
The Sean Hannity-moderated debate between Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis drew a predictable outcome from PolitiFact. They tried to ignore the raw numbers on Californians leaving Florida (and the reverse) and proclaim Newsom wasaccurate by using a "per capita" measurement for America's most populous state. That's playing with "alternative facts."
In all of PolitiFact's checking since they started in 2007, Newsom has 29 fact checks, and DeSantis has 54. But Newsom has 13 of 29 (almost half) that are True or Mostly True. DeSantis has 12 of his 54 (22 percent) True or Mostly True. Newsom has only 6 of his 29 as Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire, DeSantis has 32 of 45 (or almost 6o percent). This is what PolitiFact does, writ large. Republicans are 60 percent wrong, Democrats are 20 percent wrong. That’s why Newsom is excited to see the report!
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Lord ranted in his Dec. 2 column:
The event of this past week that drew a great deal of attention was Fox’s Sean Hannity hosting a debate between the Florida GOP Governor Ron DeSantis and California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom.
One of the striking features of this face-off was the regularity with which the two governors accused each other of lying. Which raises an obvious couple of questions. Where is the media? And will the media do their job in 2024?
It surely can’t be that difficult for journalists to dig into the obvious question. That would be: Was DeSantis really lying about this or that? Or was Newsom? As President John Adams famously said in the long ago, facts are stubborn things. And that they are. But if journalists are going to ignore and not report on facts because they are uncomfortable or make Democrat X (can you say Joe Biden?) look bad then suffice to say the 2024 campaign will not be a good one, with each party held accountable for the facts of their record.
Alex Christy spent a Dec. 14 post complaining that Newsom went on late-night TV to talk about the deabte and DeSantis, complaining that he said that DeSantis is "out there talking about anti-woke, and I mean this, for me it's not anti-woke, what he really means is anti-black he's out there censoring historic facts, he's rewriting history. He was out there, you know, he eliminated AP African American Studies. He said slavery was somehow a workforce development program and he doubled down on that." Christy huffed in defense that "Florida’s standards say that slaves learned skills that were later useful in life, not that slavery was some sort of benign job training program." As we've noted, most examples served up by Florida education officials in defense of DeSantis' claim about this were either people who were never enslaved or who never actually used skills learned in slavery later in life.
The fact that the MRC didn't talk much about the contents of the debate itself is a likely indicator of how it knows how badly it went for DeSantis -- indeed, Newsom shredded DeSantis in discussing how their respective states responded to the COVID pandemic.
For the third year in a row, the Media Research Center has issued a so-called study purporting to attack NewsGuard as having a political bias against right-wing websites. And unsurprisingly, it's as loud and lame as the first two. Jiseph Vazquez huffed in a Dec. 12 post:
With the 2024 U.S. presidential election fast approaching and Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in the polls, the media's hysteria is reaching astronomical levels.
Despite the fact that right-wingers regularly lecture their followers to ignore celebrities talking about politics, Christian Toto gave a platform to one in his Nov. 11 Media Research Center 
WorldNetDaily columnist James Zumwalt has been fretting over the impending removal of a Confederate monument in Arlington National Cemetery for a while how. He huffed in a March 29 
The Media Research Center's loud and lame war against NewsGuard has continued apace. Joseph Vazquez wrote a Nov. 21 
Newsmax has been a staunch supporter of Rudy Guiliani -- even starting a 
Bob Unruh wrote in a Dec. 12 WorldNetDaily 
When we last left off, the Media Research Center's Jorge Bonilla was 
Newsmax continued its 
Fresh off effectively 
An anonymous WorldNetDaily writer dutifully parroted a conservatively correct narrative in a Nov. 8 
A couple months back, Univision did an interview with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in which he faced no tough questions and was fawned over by interviewers. The Media Research Center's Jorge Bonilla spent a Nov. 10 
Right-wingers are all for people making decisions about their lives -- until they make decisions that don't adhere to right-wing narratives. Thus, we have Andy Schlafly spending his Nov. 14 WorldNetDaily 
We've shown how the Media Research Center's 
