Unruh Furthers WND's Misleading About Holiday Displays Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 16 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh about proposed guidelines for holiday displays in Fort Collins, Colo., like an earlier unbylined WND article on the subject, is vaguely written so as not to clearly explain that displays apply only to those on city property and do not apply to private displays.
Further, repeating an omission from the previous article that refutes Unruh's assertion that holiday displays on city property would be limited to "neutral and non-religious decorations," Unruh fails to mention that the proposed guidelines would permit the display of menorahs and creches.
MRC-Fox News Appearance Watch Topic: Media Research Center
Dan Gainor of the MRC's Business & Media Insititute appeared on the Fox Business channel on Nov. 15. While only an edited-down cliip of the appearance has been posted on NewsBusters, it appears that it follows the template by having Gainor appear solo, and we can presume that nobody mentioned the fact that Gainor and BMI are conservative.
Interesting side note: the BMI front page touts "Dan Gainor’s weekly appearance on the Fox Business Network." Do any non-conservative business organizations get such consideration?
And on the Nov. 13 edition of "Fox & Friends," MRC president Brent Bozell was the beneficiary of a fawning interview to plug his new (factually dubious) anti-Hillary book.
Sheppard Thinks Juan Williams Is A Liberal Topic: NewsBusters
In a Nov. 15 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard touted how "well-known liberal journalist" Juan Williams "slamm[ed] the owner of Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas," calling it "stunning" and "something you don't see every day."
Jeffrey Misleads on Clinton and NIE Topic: CNSNews.com
In a Nov. 15 CNSNews.com article, editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey wrote that during a June Democratic presidential debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer "challenged Clinton on her failure to read the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that had been produced for Congress in the fall of 2002 specifically to give senators and representatives the intelligence community's best understanding of the situation in Iraq, before they had to decide whether or not to authorize the use of force in that country. Having not read the NIE, Clinton nonetheless voted to authorize a war." Jeffrey claimed that Clinton "gave a 189-word answer that did not directly answer the question" and that after asking the question again, "Blitzer still did not get a clear answer from Clinton." Jeffrey added that Blitzer "then went on to put the same tough question to former Sen. John Edwards, who also voted to authorize the war in Iraq without having first read the National Intelligence Estimate."
Missing from Jeffrey's article are the responses that Clinton and Edwards actually gave, which refute Jeffrey's suggestion that the only possible way to have given an informed vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq was to have sat down and read the entire NIE.
Clinton responded that she "was thoroughly briefed. I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts." Edwards responded: "I think it's true that I was on the Intelligence Committee -- and I don't think Senator Clinton was, but I was on the Intelligence Committee. I received direct information from that. I met with former high-level people in the Clinton administration who gave me additional information. And I read the summary of the NIE. I think I had the information I needed."
Such a misleading article by CNS' editor-in-chief coincides with other evidence that Jeffrey is taking CNS in a more aggresively biased direction.
New Article: The Clinton-Hater Is Dead, Long Live the Clinton-Hater Topic: WorldNetDaily
NewsMax may be toning down its anti-Clinton rhetoric, but WorldNetDaily is plowing full speed ahead with its old-school Clinton smears. Read more.
MRC Flip-Flops, Defends McCain Topic: Media Research Center
How times change. As late as August, the Media Research Center (in the personage of Brent Bozell's Aug. 29 column) was deriding John McCain as a "liberal media darling." Now, the MRC is running to McCain's defense.
A Nov. 14 MRC CyberAlert by Brent Baker attacks CNN's Rick Sanchez for "[t]rying to create a scandal over Republican presidential candidate John McCain's failure to rebuke a woman supporter who called Hillary Clinton a 'bitch,'" complaining that "Sanchez's spin matched that of left-wing bloggers." Baker added that Sanchez "haughtily intoned" his report.
A Nov. 15 NewsBusters post by Baker repeats the attack on Sanchez, happily noting that CNN host and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz (another person the MRC normally despises) stated that the "little incident was pretty badly hyped by Rick Sanchez."
But if the MRC hates McCain for cozying up to the so-called liberal media, why is it defending him now? Why should it care that McCain is embroiled in a controversy? Perhaps because when the chips are down, it will defend any Republican and attack any non-Republican -- thus making it an unofficial adjunct of the Republican National Committee -- as we noted when the MRC flip-flopped on Chris Matthews.
Newsmax Mag's Clinton Article Really Is Positive Topic: Newsmax
So we picked up a copy of the current issue of Newsmax's magazine, the cover story of which is a profile of Bill Clinton's life after the presidency, to see if is really as positive as Christopher Ruddy's recent atypical fawning over the guy suggests.
The answer is yes. The article (not online) has numerous nice things to say about Clinton, noting that he "has reinvented himself as an extrordinary pitchman for charitable causes globally and "never appears at a loss for energy or vision." It offers friendly views of the Clinton Global Initiative and his friendship with former president George H.W. Bush, played down played the usual conservative attack on Clinton's private life and even touted a quote from a psychotherapist who said that "Bill Clinton is the embodiment of the American Dream" for coming from humble circumstances. Even a sidebar profile of "Bill's Ultra-Rich Buddy," Ron Burkle, is told in a straightforward manner.
The only arguably negative parts are a few paragraphs spent on Clinton's "finger-wagging rage" during an intervew with Fox News' Chris Wallace and an accompanying unverified anecdote by Richard Miniter, a conservative author who is not described as conservative, and a sidebar on the post-presidency activities of other former presidents that bashes Jimmy Carter and fails to mention Watergate in regard to Richard Nixon, noting only that he was "[d]isbarred by the State of New York in 1976."
The article was written by Edward Sigall, who, near as we can tell, appears to be this guy -- a person who, despite a long career at the National Enquirer, describes himself as "[o]ne of America’s most respected editors and writers."
In his column in the magazine (also not online; it's a partly rewritten version of his Sept. 14 online column), Ruddy endeavored to draw a line between his Clinton-hating antics of the past and his fawning behavior of today:
Our regular readers may be suprised this month to see Bill Clinton gracing the cover of our newly redesigned magazine. That's because thorugh the years, Newsmax and I have done our share of Clinton-bashing.
Let me make it clear that the focus of our coverage this month is on his years after leaving the White House and how he has remolded the job of a post-president into a powerful private post.
As we'venoted, Newsmax still engages in its fair share of Clinton-bashing.
WND Columnist Wrong About Florida Recount Topic: WorldNetDaily
From a Nov. 5 WorldNetDaily column by Michael Ackley:
Democrats like Mrs. Clinton also refuse to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that every subsequent recount, by every partisan organization, by every nonpartisan organization, by every news organization, concluded that George W. Bush won Florida.
WND Misleads on Holiday Lights Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gearing up for yetanother misleading "war on Christmas," a Nov. 6 WorldNetDaily article claiming that Fort Collins, Colo., is considering "banning red and green lights at the Christmas holiday because they fall among the items that are too religious for the city to sponsor" is misleadingly written. The article is vaguely written enough to leave the impression that such a ban would apply to all displays in the entire city, including private ones, when in fact it only applies to holiday displays on city property.
Further, WND failed to note that the city's holiday display task force recommended numerous "symbols incorporating light" for display on the grounds of the city's museum, including religious symbols WND ought to approve of such as a creche and a menorah.
Bozell Can't Stop Lying About Hillary, Part 2 Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell's Hillary mendacity continues: Media Matters reports that in an appearance on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," Bozell claimed that Hillary Clinton "was behind the whole FBI-gates," an apparent reference to FBI files reportedly obtained by the Clinton White House. Unfortunately for Bozell, independent counsel Robert Ray determined that "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from the administrations of President Bush and President Reagan.''
Ponte Attacks Matthews, Smears Clinton Topic: Newsmax
In his Nov. 13 NewsMax column, Lowell Ponte declares that the "now-menopausal" MSNBC host Chris Matthews is "in love" with Barack Obama, claiming that Matthews' expressed approval of a recent speech Obama gave "reflects the sensibility of aging boomers who came of age in the era of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, honorable poet Eugene McCarthy, the Rev. Martin Luther King, anti-Vietnam War protests, the Summer of Love, hippies, and chemically-altered consciousness." Ponte seems to have somehow overlooked the fact that Matthews has asserted that John McCain "deserves to be president," as well as other expressions of support for Republicans and attacks on Democrats that contradict Ponte's description of Matthews as a "liberal baby boomer."
Ponte then writes:
Former President Bill Clinton now describes Hillary’s political rivals as “boys.”
To Northern ears, Mr. Clinton seems merely to be belittling Hillary’s opponents, suggesting that they are behaving like children by “piling on” her.
But to Southern ears — and Bill Clinton was born in the segregated, Democrat-ruled state of Arkansas, whose first ray of civil rights enlightenment came when Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to integrate Little Rock schools — Clinton’s use of this code word carries a different meaning.
In the racist Arkansas of Bill Clinton’s youth, African-American men were called “boy” to denigrate them and assert white supremacy.
Because Barack Obama is Hillary Clinton’s main rival, the only candidate with high enough popularity and money to overtake her, Bill Clinton’s use of this racist epithet “boy” falls most heavily on him.
The Clintons poll, test, and focus-group everything. So when Bill Clinton aims a racially-loaded word like “boy” at Barack Obama, this is no accident. It is a calculated attempt to evoke white racist feelings at an almost subliminal, subconscious level as a way to help elect Hillary.
Ponte, offers no evidence whatsoever that Clinton was referring to Obama specifically when calling Hillary's opponents as "boys."
Does Ponte also think that the Southern term "good ol' boy" has some kind of "code word" racist connotation as well? Does this mean that when Ronald Reagan referred to "states' rights" in a speech in Mississippi while running for president in 1980, he was also sending a "code word" to "Southern ears"? Do tell, Mr. Ponte.
Bozell Can't Stop Lying About Hillary Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted that in promoting his new anti-Hillary book, Brent Bozell falsely asserted that Time magazine "introduced her to the country as an 'amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.'"
He's still doing it: In a Nov. 13 National Review article, Bozell and Tim Graham wrote that "Time’s Margaret Carlson describing her as 'an amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.'" We'll let TPM's Greg Sargent do the honors this time:
Carlson was actually mocking Hillary supporters for presenting her in such glowing terms. But Bozell and Graham cheerfully told National Review's readers that Carlson herself had presented her in these terms. Even more amusingly, they held this up as proof of the media's liberal bias.
I know, I know, this is just garden variety wingnut mendacity. Standard fare. Low-hanging fruit. Still, it was definitely worth a quick laugh.
Bozell and Graham go on to complain in their National Review article that they and others in the "alternative media" are "blasted as 'Clinton haters' and 'persecutors' straight out of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'" for "having the temerity to seek the truth." But their book's lead claim is not only false, it's easily proven to be false.
The reason Bozell and Graham are "blasted as 'Clinton haters'" is because, in fact, they are.
UPDATE: Graham defends his and Bozell's quoting of the Time article in a Nov. 14 NewsBusters post, insisting that Carlson "described Hillary that way, and we think it's emblematic of the pro-Hillary media goo" and that entire article shows that "Margaret sounds exactly like the 'gushing and cringe-worthy' Hillary friends that get sent out to spin the media." But that's not what Graham claimed in the National Review article (and their promo copy); they didn't go after the whole article. And Graham's suggestion that because Carlson "described Hillary that way" that it is, ipso facto, an accurate reflection of her personal opinion of Hillary brings to mind Graham's attempt to falsely ascribe the opinions of people quoted in a Washington Post article about Che Guevara to the person who wrote the article.
Also worth noting out of Graham's response is this snide aside: "Let’s put aside for a moment the point that Hillary doesn’t come anywhere close to Betty Crocker (she wouldn’t be caught dead making Bill’s dinner every night, when there are servants for that)." And Graham is purportedly offended by being called a "Clinton-hater"?
Kincaid Whitewashes Waterboarding Topic: Accuracy in Media
In a Nov. 11 Accuracy in Media column, Cliff Kincaid wrote:
Congress itself has never declared waterboarding to be a form of torture. Perhaps that is because it is not. It makes a terrorist uncomfortable and feel like drowning, but it does not subject him to permanent physical or psychological harm. What's more, the technique reportedly worked in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, admitted mastermind of 9/11, who confessed to other ongoing plots to kill Americans that were apparently stopped.
In fact, there is evidence that waterboarding does, in fact, result in "permanent physical or psychological harm." Further, as we've noted, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's waterboarding produced results that were "debatable," and author Ron Suskind adds that what U.S. interrogators got out of Mohammed after waterboarding were "things that professional interrogators say could have been gotten otherwise."
A Nov. 12 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas touted "a government report on casualty rates" claiming that "American soldiers died in higher numbers during some of the peace-time years in the 1980s than in recent years when the military has fought conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan." But it wasn't until the end of the article that Lucas mentioned a relevant fact: This report "was first released in June and updated in August."
Lucas is reporting something that was first released at least three months ago.
WND Misleads on Abortion Clinic Law Topic: WorldNetDaily
A certain Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily article carries no byline -- perhaps because it's so slanted that the writer was ashamed to put his or her name to it.
The article is about a proposed law in Oakland, Calif, to require a 8-food "bubble" between women going to abortion clinics and anti-abortion protesters. But that's not how WND described it. Here's the lead:
A proposal moving swiftly toward approval by the Oakland City Council would tell Christians and others who offer an alternative to abortion to "shut up," a public interest law firm says.
The article never clearly states the basic provision of the law -- that it would require an 8-foot buffer between protesters and patients. It quotes only anti-abortion activists, mostly someone from the Pacific Justice Institute, the "public interest law firm" in the lead, who claimd that the law is "the biggest threat to free speech in a generation, and that's not hyperbole."
The article also depicted Oakland councilwoman Jane Brunner as telling reporters that "the ordinance 'would give women the right to make that choice and safely go to the clinic,' without hearing any statements that conflict with the abortion-rights lobby." In fact, here's what Brunner said, according to an Oct. 23 San Francisco Chronicle article:
"It's a very hard decision for a woman to make to decide if she is going to carry a baby or have an abortion," said Councilwoman Jane Brunner, co-author of the ordinance. "If she decides to get clinical help, she should be able to reach that place without being harassed or scared. This ordinance would give women the right to make that choice and safely go in the clinic."
Brunner said nothing about "statements that conflict with the abortion-rights lobby."
If we were falsely portraying other people's statements, we wouldn't want our name to be associated with it, either. Too bad WND as a whole has no similar sense of shame.