A Nov. 7 WorldNetDaily article on Republican Ken Blackwell's loss in the Ohio governor's race to Democrat (and WND and Jerome Corsi punching bag) Ted Strickland actually notes that Blackwell is "author of 'Rebuilding America,' published by WND Books."
That's unusual, given WND's previous reluctance to disclose its financial interest in Blackwell when attacking his opponents.
In a Nov. 7 NewsBusters post, Rich Noyes complains about conservative Joe Scarborough's claim to Chris Matthews that "I have been bashing my party more than the Democratic party because I want to make sure that I am fair and down the middle":
So “far and down the middle” means hitting Republicans harder than Democrats? Too bad Matthews, a former staffer to Democratic President Jimmy Carter and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, doesn’t routinely attack Democrats to prove how “fair and down the middle” he is.
Well, as a longtime MRC staffer like Noyes should know (and as we've documented), Matthews routinely bashed President Clinton during the impeachment episode and has bashed John Kerry. But the MRC stopped noticing those things -- not to mention Matthews' praise of President Bush -- and cherry-pick comments in order to slam Matthews as liberal.
Noyes might want to check into the facts sometime.
Sheppard Misleads on Robo-Calls Topic: NewsBusters
In a Nov. 7 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard claims that "the media have been wrongly depicting" the use of "robo-calls" by political candidates "as exclusively being a Republican strategy, while ignoring the Democrat campaigns that are doing exactly the same thing."
But it's misleading for Sheppard to focus on the general use of robo-calls -- a strategy both parties use; the debate is over certain tactics used in them. The only relevant counter-example Sheppard cites in response to a CNN report claiming that the National Republican Congressional Committee was making robo-calls in which the message didn't identify the caller at the top of the call and include a phone number -- both required by the FCC -- is a robo-call against Montana Sen. Conrad Burns made by "the international firefighters union’s political action committee." But an independent PAC is not the same thing as a direct party operation, which the NRCC is.
Further, the CNN report Sheppard cited also noted the deceptive tactic of making the listener think at the start of the call that it's from one candidate when in fact it's from the other, and of making multiple calls to residences. Sheppard offers no examples of Democrats being accused of those tactics.
Corsi's Last, Desperate Shot at Strickland Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi's gay-baiting sex obsession with Ted Strickland didn't work -- in fact, it may have scared voters away from Corsi's buddy and co-author (and Strickland's opponent for Ohio governor), Ken Blackwell -- so Corsi is spending Nov. 7 column, his final election shot at Strickland, trying to tie him to John Kerry and bizarrely taking Strickland to task for not having served in the military.
The only thing for Corsi to do at this point is place a bet on just how badly Blackwell will lose.
A Nov. 6 CNSNews.com article by Dawn Rizzoni on a trip by relatives of slain U.S. soldiers to Iraq, organized by Move America Forward, doesn't disclose a lot of things.
First, it's cobbled together from press releases. The first section of the article details comments by the prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan, which first appeared in a Nov. 5 MAF press release. Other quotes come from a Nov. 4 press release.
Second, Rizzoni fails to offer any description of MAF; it's a conservative-leaning, liberal-bashing political group.
Third, Rizzoni noted a previous CNS article that "a newly released book" claimed that John Kerry "tried to recruit them at their son's funeral to speak out against President Bush and the war in Iraq." But Rizzoni failed to note that the book was written by Melanie Morgan, chairwoman of MAF -- the group she featured in her Frankensteined article.
UPDATE: Why, lookie here! WorldNetDaily built an article around those very same MAF press releases.
In a Nov. 6 NewsMax column claiming that by voting against Democrats, "you can vote against the Left wing media," Lowell Ponte cites as evidence that there are "lords who rule America's liberal press" who have "unchecked power" by their alleged support of liberal politicians the following:
A 2005 University of California Los Angeles-led study found that 18 of the nation's top 20 media outlets skewed their news coverage significantly to the Left.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose, the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
Of the two media outlets that did not tilt Left, the UCLA-led study found, the Fox News Channel program "Special Report with Brit Hume" indeed "proved to be right of center," and Fox News is "often cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet."
However, the study continued, ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" – which present themselves as unbiased newscasts - are about as far left of center as the Fox is right of center.
Ponte does not note that the Groseclose study has been discredited because it employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless (for instance, it considers the ACLU "liberal") and it lacks citations to scholarly literature on the subject of media bias (yet offers numerous links to right-wing sources). Ponte also fails to note that Groseclose and his co-author, Jeffrey Milyo, have ties to conservative think tanks.
If the Democrats win control of Congress and their rhetoric and votes are to be believed, they would adopt the Clinton administration's spineless approach to fighting terrorism.
They would gut the USA Patriot Act.
They would stop interception of calls from al-Qaida to and from the U.S.
They would end tracking of terrorists' financial transfers.
They would bestow legal rights on al-Qaida terrorists who are being interrogated about planned plots rights similar to those enjoyed by American citizens.
Finally, they would cut off funds to support the war effort in Iraq, handing al-Qaida a win in what the terrorists themselves have described as a crucial battleground in their effort to defeat America and impose their vision of radical Islam on the world.
No evidence, no analysis -- just scare tactics. This is the guy who has claimed to earn prestigious journalism awards?
As we've detailed, Kessler threw away a distinguished journalism career to commit to NewsMax -- whom he laughably claimed "practices journalism honestly and fairly" -- and Bush hagiography. This just confirms how far away he is from what he tossed aside. If Kessler this his column is an example of "honest and fair" journalism, he is seriously deluded.
Farah Gets It Wrong about Klein's Terrorist Buddies Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 6 WorldNetDaily article promoting Aaron Klein's claim that terrorists want Democrats to win on Tuesday features a rebuttal of a Media Matters item I co-wrote pointing out Klein's regular promotion of previous statements by his stable of terrorists:
David Brock's media watchdogs at Media Matters are fighting mad about what they see as Fox News Channel's promotion of the WND scoop.
Media Matters hyperventilates that Klein "has similarly promoted inflammatory statements by terrorists in the past."
"I think most of the world understood that neither Klein nor WND was 'promoting' what these terrorists had to say," explained WND Editor Joseph Farah. "There is much speculation in the press about what these dangerous people think and want. Our reporter just happens to be one of the very few who is not afraid to ask them questions and report their answers verbatim. That's not promotion. It's good journalism – something about which David Brock and his organization apparently know little."
As we point out in our analysis of Klein's reporting of terrorist statements, Klein clearly has some kind of relationship with them -- after all, as a right-wing Jew, he is their enemy, a writer has no history of fairness toward their views.
And speaking of "good journalism," Klein has no evidence that the three terrorists he quotes in his article to are representative of the views of all terrorists on the U.S. elections -- yet he and WND are claiming that they are, which is hardly sound journalistic practice. As Media Matters has noted, intelligence agencies have concluded that Osama bin Laden's release of a videotape before the 2004 election was designed to get President Bush re-elected -- something Klein fails to mention in his article. Klein's terrorist buddies could have similarly been feeding him disinformation they know he would use as red meat for his conservative readers because they, in fact, want the Republicans to win.
So let's not pretend that "good journalism" had anthing to do with Klein's article. Klein has a longhistory of using his reporting for partisan ends, and nothing has changed here.
To that end, we have a challenge for Klein and Farah: Print our detailed criticisms of Klein's reporting on WND, and rebut them point by point. Tell us why we're wrong to note Klein's history of bias and lack of full context. Tell us how three people constitutes an official consensus of the views of hundreds of thousands of terrorists. Tell us how Klein maintains a working relationship with these terrorists when he is their enemy.
New Article: Aaron Klein's Terrorist Buddies Topic: WorldNetDaily
Another election, another excuse for WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem reporter to try to link Democrats to terrorists. Do the terrorists Klein quotes know he's using them, or are they a party to his game? Read more.
When you can't rebut the message, attack the messenger. That's what NewsBusters did regarding a editiorial that appeared in the Army Times and related publications supporting the resignation of Defense Secreatary Donald Rumsfeld, where writers were quick to tar it with the allegedly liberal view of the papers' corporate owner, Gannett:
John Stephenson insisted that Army Times and related newspapers were not "professional military publications," adding, "They are now part of the Gannett Group (USAToday) and the writers for these four 'military papers' also work at USAToday!"
Michael Bates reiterated the ownership point, also claiming: "Moreover, this isn't the first time these 'military newspapers' have called for Mr. Rumsfeld to be fired. They also did so two and one-half years ago."
Mark Finkelstein claimed that the papers are "nothing more than cogs in the Gannett chain, a member-in-good-standing of the MSM whose flagship paper is the reliably-liberal USA Today." Finknelstein offers no evidence that every Gannett-owned paper must follow the editorial policies of USA Today. Nor does he support his suggestion that getting rid of Rumsfeld is an inherently "liberal" position, after all, numerousRepublicans have been critical of Rumsfeld's performance during the war.
WorldNetDaily joined the kill-the-messenger party, playing up in a Nov. 5 article a claim that, as a reporter for Stars and Stripes during the Vietnam War, Army Times editor Robert Hodierne was accused of "treason" for writing about a group of soldiers "who, for a brief time, refused to fight."
WND does not detail the actual article that Hodierne wrote. In it, he writes of an infantry company that lost 23 men and an officer during a day of fighting:
By two p.m. the sixty-one men of Bravo Company were ready to move back into the same area. No one really wanted to go. They just wanted to sit in the shade and be left alone.
The commander, Captain William H. Grayler, explained the situation. There would be no helicopter gunship support. The gunships had more important things to do than support Bravo Company. Air and artillery couldn't be used because the marines were too close. They had no mortars, The infantryman, with his rifle and grenades, was expected to dig out the North Vietnamese.
WND doesn't explain where, exactly, the "treason" is in Hodierne's article.
UPDATE: Accuracy in Media also hops on the bandwagon. (You'd think this was coordinated or something.) A Nov. 6 column by Cliff Kincaid calls Gannett "important bastion of liberal media power" and attacks USA Today.
WorldNetDaily's latest crusade is an unusual one: attacking an extreme right-wing radio host.
An Oct. 29 WND article reported on "anti-Semitic white supremacist" Hal Turner's statement that he "may have to" assassinate incumbent members of Congress who win re-election Nov. 7. Follow-up articles have noted a federal investigation into Turner's statement and Turner's response that he he was just kidding: "Since I don't actually plan to kill anyone, I didn't bother creating a list of any type."
This line of attack is unusual because typically, the only time WND goes after a right-winger is for not being right-wing enough. Heck, WND published Michael Savage's first two books, then defended Savage after he was canned from his MSNBC show for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die."
Turner, needless to say, is unhappy about the attention. On his website, he calls WND editor Joseph Farah a "filthy hypocrite," linking to our item noting that Farah condoned the killing of an adulterer. Turner concluded: "Hey Joe Farah: FUCK OFF, asshole!"
We're certainly not endorsing any of Turner's views; he's every bit as odious as WND depicts him as being, and then some. But given that Turner has been spouting these views for years -- in 1998, as a regular caller on Sean Hannity's radio show, Turner said that "if it weren't for the white man, blacks would still be swinging from the trees in Africa" -- we wonder what took WND so long to notice.
The latest polling for the Ohio governor's race shows Democrat Ted Strickland an amazing 36 points ahead of Republican Ken Blackwell, up from a 19-point lead a month earlier. The Columbus Dispatch notes that Blackwell recently "began airing positive commercials after other Republicans said his harsh criticism of Strickland was hurting the entire ticket."
That criticism, of course, centered on sex-related issues regarding Strickland -- his purported homosexuality, the hiring of a person who had once been convicted on indecency charges, a vote on a House bill condemning a sex-related study. As we've noted, all of these issues Blackwell raised were mirrored in a series of articles written by Jerome Corsi -- co-author of a book with Blackwell -- for WorldNetDaily.
Such overaggressive gay-baiting attacks, and the subsequent polling showing plummeting support for Blackwell, raise the question of whether Corsi ended up hurting his friend instead of helping him. He was over the top, at one point writing a column containing the phrase "lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender" or slight variants a whopping 22 times. That may also be why Corsi used his Nov. 3 column to praise Blackwell instead of bashing Strickland -- again, mirroring Blackwell's switch to more positive advertising.
It's two more days before the election, and two more days for Corsi to comment on it. Will Corsi go positive, or will he keep up his negative attacks on Strickland -- and risk hurting Blackwell's performance even further?
MRC: Haggard Was Anti-Global Warming, Not a Real Conservative Topic: Media Research Center
The ConWeb can't run away fast enough from evangelical Rev. Ted Haggard and his gay-sex-and-meth scandal. At the Media Research Center, they're questioning his conservative credentials.
On Nov. 3 and 4, the CNSNews.com front page resurrected a November 2005 column by conservative icon Paul Weyrich complaining that under Haggard's leadership, the National Association of Evangelicals had been on a "leftward drift" by supporting governmental action against global warming. Weyrich hoped that "NAE traditional values - rather than unproven science -- will win the day."
A Nov. 4 NewsBusters post by Amy Ridenour continued the theme:
In light of the recent scandlous allegations regarding evangelical leader Rev. Ted Haggard, many news outlets have been referring to Haggard as a "conservative." Only a small number are mentioning that Haggard also sees himself as a global warming activist -- and definitely not one of the "skeptic" variety.
So, you can't be a conservative and not want to do something about global warming?
Getting It Wrong: NY Times and Iraq Nukes Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writers were eager to deliberately misinterpret a Nov. 3 New York Times article as claiming that Iraq was close to having a nuclear bomb at the time the Iraq war started in 2003:
-- Al Brown, in a NewsBusters post, excitedly claimed that "Saddam Hussein's regime was perhaps only a year away from developing nuclear weapons at the time of the US invasion," calling the Times article "a stunning November Surprise to the Democrats."
-- A Times Watch item by Clay Waters doesn't specifically assign the nuke claim to pre-2003 invasion but claims that it "suggests Bush was right to consider Saddam Hussein a threat," adding that "many [conservatives] think the Times has unwittingly proved Bush right on the matter of the threat dictator Saddam Hussein posed to the world."
Here's the graf in question from the Times article:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
It's not very clearly written -- the writer drops three different time periods to which "at the time" could apply -- but it appears that given the order of the paragraph, "at the time" applies to "the Persian Gulf war." It makes even more sense when you consider that at least three U.S. or U.K. government reports concluded that Saddam did not have an active WMD or nuclear program at the time of the 2003 invasion; in fact, those reports also conlcuded that Saddam's nuclear capability was destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War. While Saddam may certainly have wanted WMDs, desire and capability are two different things.
By downplaying or misinterpreting the most logical date that Saddam was "on the verge of building an atom bomb," MRC writers like Brown and Waters do their readers a disservice. Or is their version of attacking "liberal bias" not supposed to be based in fact?
In co-authoring "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," John O'Neill and I documented that Kerry's insults against the U.S. military trace back to his 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There, Kerry falsely accused our troops in Vietnam of being an army of Ghengis Khan that were committing unspeakable crimes. Kerry further claimed our military in Vietnam were committing these crimes on a daily basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
Kerry based his claims to the committee on false statements made to a Vietnam Veteran's Against the War set of "hearings" known as "The Winter Soldier Investigation," held in Detroit, Mich., in January and February 1971. In a book entitled "Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was Robbed of its Heroes and its History," authors B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley documented that much of the testimony given at these mock hearings was fraudulent, much of it given by those who had never served in Vietnam.
In fact, as ConWebWatch has detailed, Burkett's claim that the Winter Soldier testimony was "fraudulent" is based on a claim in a 1978 book by historian Guenter Lewy. He claimed that there was a Naval Investigative Service report that discredited Winter Soldier -- but the Navy can't confirm the existence of the report, and Lewy himself "does not recall if he saw a copy of the naval investigative report or was briefed on its contents."
Hardly a solid, stellar piece of evidence. And Corsi wrote an entire book about Kerry based on evidence such as this, folks.