MRC Still Won't Criticize McCain-Hagee Link Topic: NewsBusters
When Rev. John Hagee endorsed John McCain, we noted that the Media Research Center refused to criticize Hagee's anti-Catholic attacks (even though it has highlighted perceived anti-Catholicism in the media) or McCain's refusal to reject the endorsement (even though it was quick to pounce on controversial statements by Rev. Jeremiah Wright). Now that Hagee has apologized for his anti-Catholic statements, the MRC still won't criticize him or McCain.
The only mention of it at the MRC so far is a May 14 NewsBusters post by Ken Shepherd, which refers to Hagee's "controversial anti-Catholic comments" in passing without listing or criticizing them -- but is more concerned that a Washington Post article on it quoted someone who "used to work for the DNC during the Kerry campaign as Director of Religious Outreach." Shepherd added: "Catholic or no, it's not all that surprising that the former liberal Democratic Party staffer would refuse to let the Hagee matter drop in a tense election year when presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has his own share of problems, to say the least, with loopy clergymen in his corner."
It's also not at all surprising that the MRC has a double standard on religious bigotry.
Farah Misleads on Gore, Myanmar Cyclone Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah's May 14 WorldNetDaily column began: "Al Gore has made the pronouncement: Tens of thousands were killed by a cyclone in Myanmar because of 'global warming.'"
Actually, no, he didn't. As Farah himself states in the following paragraph, Gore said that the cyclone is one example of "consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming" (emphasis ours). In other words, that's not a "pronouncement," as Farah claimed; it's merely a suggestion.
Further, Farah curiously failed to mention Gore's statement from that same interivew that "any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming – we've always had hurricanes." As we noted, the MRC's Business & Media Institute similarly downplayed this statement.
Apparently still bitter about having to tell the truth and admit that WND published false claims about Gore supporter Clark Jones, Farah went on to liken Gore to the repressive Myanmar military junta (while, of course, denying that he was):
Al Gore is promoting solutions to this phantom problem of "global warming" that will, ultimately, reduce all of us to the kind of helpless, landless serfs who lost their lives in Myanmar. Gore and his friends want more government control over the population, less industry, controls on private property, regulations on communication and rule by an elite socialist clique.
Am I comparing Gore with the ruling junta of Myanmar?
No. I'm sure the kind of ruling socialist junta imposed by Gore and his friends would be much more enlightened, sophisticated, cosmopolitan. But it would ultimately result in even greater death and destruction on a worldwide scale.
If Gore and his global-warming deceivers ever have their way with us, we, too, will have nowhere to flee.
For years America has drifted away from assimilation, which has become an unspeakable word among the cultural elite. Instead, we are told that we must recognize and celebrate the diversity of various groups without demanding any compromise from them. This has hurt immigrants more than anyone else because many have become isolated in cultural ghettos without a proper command of English, the American political and legal systems or American history and culture.
What we need to do is return the debate to the topic of assimilation, of learning to speak English, of the value of becoming a citizen, and of pride in a country that provides immigrants from around the world with more opportunities for success than any other country on earth.
A return to assimilation and a coherent culture will not begin until we put our own house in order. We cannot expect others to respect us when many Americans themselves are ashamed of their country.
Weyrich's column was immediately proven to be a sham by a May 13 Washington Post article:
Immigrants of the past quarter-century have been assimilating in the United States at a notably faster rate than did previous generations, according to a study released today.
In general, the longer an immigrant lives in the United States, the more characteristics of native citizens he or she tends to take on, said Jacob L. Vigdor, a professor at Duke University and author of the study. During periods of intense immigration, such as from 1870 to 1920, or during the immigration wave that began in the 1970s, new arrivals tend to drag down the average assimilation index of the foreign-born population as a whole.
The report found, however, that the speed with which new arrivals take on native-born traits has increased since the 1990s. As a result, even though the foreign population doubled during that period, the newcomers did not drive down the overall assimilation index of the foreign-born population. Instead, it held relatively steady from 1990 to 2006.
"This is something unprecedented in U.S. history," Vigdor said. "It shows that the nation's capacity to assimilate new immigrants is strong."
A possible explanation, Vigdor said, was that the economic expansion of the 1990s created more job opportunities at all levels, speeding the economic integration of immigrants. It could also be that because today's immigrants begin at such a low starting point, "it's easier to make progress to the next level up" of integration than it would be if the immigrant had to improve on an already high level of integration.
Oops! Will Weyrich respond to this study or retract his now-proven-wrong column? We shall see.
WND Takes Obama Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
(Updated)(and updated again)(and once more)
Another Obama-bashing May 13 WorldNetDaily article taken from an interview Barack Obama did with the Atlantic magazine misleadingly claims that Obama "says Israel is a 'constant wound' and a 'constant sore' that infects 'all of our foreign policy.'"
In fact, the Atlantic interview -- which WND offers no link to, so that his readers can judge for themselves -- shows that, in context, Obama was "this constant wound" and "this constant sore" does not specifically refer to Israel alone, even though the interviewer asked, "Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?" Immediately preceding the question, Obama was discussing Israeli settlements on the West Bank and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in general:
[BO:] Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.
JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?
BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.
But the article offers none of this context. Further, , Klein makes not mention of the expansive statements Obama made in support of Israel, as chief Obama-basher Aaron Klein has done before.
Remember: Aaron Klein and WND have an agenda to smearObama however he can. Taking this comment out of context is just one more example of this facts-be-damned agenda in action.
UPDATE: A new Klein article quotes anonymous (of course) Hamas officials as saying that "remarks made by an official supportive of Sen. Barack Obama were 'misunderstood.'"
Isn't the real problem here that Hamas continues to speak to Klein, someone who's committed to using Hamas to further his anti-Obama agenda? If Klein is so opposed to Hamas and willing to twist its words to further his own personal agenda, why is Hamas even deigning to speak to him?
And while we're at it, why is Klein so cozy with terrorists that he's willing to grant them anonymity? After all, remember what Klein's boss, Joseph Farah, said about anonymous sources: "usually quotes made up out of whole cloth to help make the story read better."
UPDATE 2: It turns out that all Klein did is rehash a Republican talking point. Are we sure Klein isn't on the McCain campaign payroll?
UPDATE 3: Jeffrey Goldberg, who interviewed Obama for the Atlantic, points out that "Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me," and that taking "constant sore" out of context is a "flat-out lie" as well as "mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable." Will WND retract this article like it has had to do before regarding Klein's faulty reporting?
UPDATE 4: The article is unbylined, not apparently written by Klein. This item has been updated to reflect that.
'Take Back Web 2.0 for Conservatism' Topic: NewsBusters
We noticed this paragraph in NewsBusters' promotion for the latest edition of its "NewsBusted" comedy video:
If you're a Myspace user, be sure to visit our MySpace page and add NewsBusted as a friend. You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel and help take back Web 2.0 for conservatism by giving us positive ratings and smacking down left-wingers who can't stand that the joke's on them for a change.
How, exactly, does subscribing to a YouTube channel "take back Web 2.0 for conservatism"? And doesn't this emphasis on YouTube as a delivery vehicle put the lie to the MRC's rationale for creating its Eyeblast video site -- that YouTube censors conservatives?
What Aaron Klein Didn't Report Topic: WorldNetDaily
A May 13 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein played up Barack Obama's response to Klein's manufactured controversy over a Hamas spokesman offering support for Obama's campaign, negatively framing it as Obama saying that "he understands why the terrorist group supports his presidential bid."
Obama's statements came in an interview with the Atlantic magazine. Klein focused narrowly on Obama's reaction to the Hamas "endorsement" and "former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state." Klein curiously doesn't link to the Atlantic interview, even though it's online. Why? Perhaps because it portrays Obama as a big supporter of Israel, which conflicts with Klein's misleading efforts to portray Obama as the terrorists' choice.
While Klein does reproduce a few of Obama's statements supportive of Israel, most of those are buried under a rehashing of the controversy. Here's some of what Obama said that Klein didn't report:
You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.
And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.
I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.
The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut.
When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go.
Why didn't Klein tell his readers about this? Like we said, it conflicts with Klein's own efforts to smear Obama. In other words, the truth is in the way of Klein's reporting, and we know what side Klein is on -- and it ain't the truth.
A ConWebWatch reader notes regarding Joseph Farah's May 12 screed against La Raza:
I might just be seeing something that isn't really there, but doesn't the line of Farah's "...victimize Jews and others they detest in trying to lift themselves up from the gutter" imply that 'Jews and others' regularly lift themselves up from the gutter? That, in fact, Jews and other are normally in the gutter?
I might just be picking a nit here, but I think Farah's outlook might be a bit screwy.
Or Farah might be saying that Latinos are "in the gutter," which is arguably just as offensive. Nevertheless, we concur with that final conclusion.
Newsmax Still Hates Clinton, Loves Republicans Topic: Newsmax
Remember: Despite all its recent moderation and moves toward the mainstream, Newsmax still hates the Clintons (and all Democrats) and will always give Republicans positive, preferential coverage.
Exhibit 1: a May 11 piece by Joseph F. Connor making numerous guilt-by-association attacks on both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:
Obama, through his relationship with Weather Underground member William Ayers and the United Church of Christ, also connects to the FALN and via this intricate web of radicals to groups such as the May 19th Communist Organization (formed from splintered Weather Underground members; named for the May 19 birthdates of both Ho Chi Minh and Malcolm X).
Clinton has direct connections to FALN, the most prolific terrorist group in U.S. history; Weather Underground, the same group connected to Obama; and the Black Panthers, as well as indirect connections to others.
Exhibit 2: the cover of the new issue of Newsmax magazine:
MRC Caught Pushing Distorted Attack on Gore Topic: Media Research Center
The Wonk Room details how a May 6 item by Jeff Poor at the MRC's Business & Media Institute misleadingly asserted that Al Gore claimed on NPR's "Fresh Air" that the cyclone in Myanmar/Burma was a "consequence" of global warming:
The audio clip included with the online story includes two segments that have been spliced together, out of order, to mislead the listener as to Gore’s actual meaning. The actual transcript (see below) makes it clear Gore was saying that the “consequences” of global warming we’re seeing was the melting of the polar ice cap, which is unequivocally due to anthropogenic climate change.
In fact, Gore said in the "Fresh Air" interview that "any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming – we’ve always had hurricanes." Poor notes it in his BMI article but doesn't see it as contradicting his assertion that Gore is "[u]sing tragedy to advance an agenda."
Poor's BMI article now notes a "clarification" that "The original audio for this story included two accurate audio clips but placed in the incorrect order. They are now included on this story as separate clips." Poor posted a version of his article at NewsBusters, but it doesn't mention that Gore said that "any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming," it contains the original misleading out-of-order audio clip, and it contains no "clarification."
It's La Raza-Bashing Day at WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
In declaring John McCain's visit to La Raza's national convention "sickening," "repulsive," "inexcusable," "immoral and evil," Joseph Farah declares in his May 12 WorldNetDaily column that "I know what La Raza is all about." And what might that be?
In reality, La Raza is a racist hate group – a band of "Hispanic supremacists," if you will, though it is seldom characterized that way.
It is no more a civil rights group than the Ku Klux Klan is a group promoting the civil rights of white people. It is no more a civil rights group than the neo-Nazi scum who marched a generation ago at Skokie, Ill., with the legal protection of the American Civil Liberties Union, another misnamed organization. It is no more a civil rights group than the Aryan skinheads who victimize Jews and others they detest in trying to lift themselves up from the gutter.
La Raza is part of the movement in this country to destroy it from within by dividing and "reconquering."
The only real differences between La Raza and the neo-Nazis and the KKK are its wealth, power and level of sophistication.
Farah offers no evidence to support these claims.
By invoking the Nazi comparison, Farah contradicts WND's earlier professed offense that someone would be likened to a Nazi (plus following in the footsteps of the ilk of Michael Savage and Jim Gilchrist in likening La Raza to the KKK). And in a later reference to Democrats as "the plantation party," Farah contradicts the ConWeb's purported shock when Hillary Clinton used the plantation metaphor to describe Republicans.
Farah wasn't the only one to bash La Raza this day. In her May 12 WND column, Barbara Simpson wrote:
Don't you know "La Raza" means "The Race," and it's a militant, angry, anti-U.S. organization. Too many members want American whites out of land they consider theirs. The goal is to have the U.S. Southwest be Hispanic.
Like Farah, Simpson offers no evidence to back up her attack.
CNS Still Won't Let Planned Parenthood Respond to Attacks Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 12 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr keeps up her recent trend of attacking Planned Parenthood without letting anyone from the group respond to the attacks.
In this instance, an "e-mail blast" asking recipients to make a "Mother's Day gift" to the organization is attacked by two different anti-abortion activists, while another Planned Parenthood email countering right-wing attempts to cut off federal funding to the group is countered by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, a leader of the defunding effort.
Asshehasbefore, Starr makes no apparent effort to obtain a response from Planned Parenthood to the criticism.
Klein Still Not Telling Full Truth About Hamas 'Endorsement' Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a May 12 column, WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein goes after his (unnamed) critics, namely "[m]ultiple industrious blogs, most openly Obama supporters," for asking questions about the "endorsement" of Barack Obama by Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousuf has promoted and defended its legitimacy:
This is hardly a smear. A well-known Hamas official expressed his opinion of a presidential candidate during a live radio interview.
Did anyone – including Obama – claiming a "smear" was perpetuated actually listen to the full, 10-minute interview?
Yousuf was not coaxed into endorsing Obama. He wasn't even asked which presidential candidate Hamas supports.
Batchelor and I simply inquired if Yousuf was surprised that Obama had criticized Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with the Hamas terrorist organization. We also asked whether Hamas was willing to speak with U.S. presidential candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Yousuf then volunteered his endorsement of Obama, immediately stating "actually we like Mr. Obama."
Without any prompting, Yousuf went on and on, gushing about the good senator.
What sort of behind-the-scenes dealmaking went on between Yousuf, Batchelor and Klein to orchestrate this interview?
Was Yousuf's endorsement of Obama a condition of his appearance on Batchelor's show?
How much of what Yousuf said negotiated in advance with Batchelor and Klein?
What did Yousuf get in return for spouting Batchelor and Klein's party line?
Was Yousef even aware he was reinforcing the political agenda of people who oppose him,or did they dupe him?
Klein then turns his fire to his critics, without actually naming who they are (while he doesn't single out anything we've written, a Daily Kos post and commenters at TPM Election Central expand on the subject):
Meanwhile, a few blogs attempting to smear the Hamas-Obama "smear" are pointing out that I've previously conducted interviews with other terrorists who have said positive things in the past about other Democrats, including Clinton and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
One blog asked "Anyone notice a pattern here?" As if I somehow have power over what well-armed, outspoken, anti-Semitic terrorist leaders have to say.
There is indeed a pattern here, but not one these obviously liberal bloggers would dare recognize – terrorists favor having Democrats in power over Republicans.
There's also a pattern Klein certainly does not want to admit publicly: He hates Obama, has a record of smearing Obama, works for a website that has published false claims about Obama, and has clearly demonstrated an interest in manufacturing any controversy he can to raise negative perceptions about Obama. Why else would he write a dozen articles trying to tie Obama to Hamas without telling readers that Obama opposes U.S. negotiation with Hamas?
As we've previously pointed out, a Hamas official has no obvious motivation to speak to, let alone advance the agenda of, a reporter and a radio host hostile to Hamas and Obama. Thus, we have to wonder what his happening behind the scenes. After all, Klein (along with his employer) has demonstrated himself to be exactly the kind of person who would go to any lengths to smear Obama -- perhaps even collaborate with a terrorist.
Unless Klein offers some transparency about his dealings with the terrorists he writes about -- so cordial, apparently, that they contribute blurbs for his book bashing them -- there's no reason to take his word for anything because he has proven himself to be so utterly consumed by his anti-Obama agenda.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
A prostitute is whatever you need her to be. While Hillary's price may be a bit higher, possibly the future of America, she is nothing more than a prostitute. Give her what she wants, and she will give you what you want.
Responding to a claim by Phil Donahue that his MSNBC talk show was canceled 'because of my political posture; my stance against the war" and that "Our ratings entitled us to be nurtured not canceled," Michael M. Bates retorted in a May 11 NewsBusters post: "Just needed a little nurturing, heh, Phil? How much nurturing is necessary when a show draws, as Donahue's did on at least one occasion, a puny 0.1 rating, an indicator that only 137,000 households are watching?" Bates added that the claim is "part of the truth, Donahue-style."
Bates doesn't say where he got his ratings statistic from. But the Associated Press reported that at the time his show was canceled, Donahue averaged 446,000 viewers, up 28 percent from a year eariler, which would seem to support Donahue's claim.
In other words, it's the truth, NewsBusters style.
Remember that April 25 WorldNetDaily article making the misleading claim that "annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980"? Turns out that story has been hanging around a lot longer than we thought.
A spam e-mail making the rounds in the military community serves as a reminder that facts can be flexible when they are launched anonymously into the vast void of cyberspace.
The e-mail, entitled, “Some very interesting statistics: Military losses, 1980 through 2006,” states that more U.S. service members died on active duty during the eight years of the Clinton administration, when there were no major U.S. military conflicts, than in the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, during which the military was fighting two large-scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The e-mail offers year-by-year U.S. military death totals from all causes — operations, illness, accidents, suicides, etc. — from 1980 through 2006.
The data supposedly were taken from a periodically updated Congressional Research Service report on the subject, which in turn is based on statistics compiled by the Pentagon’s Defense Manpower and Data Center.
There’s just one problem: The figures listed in the email are wrong. They vary markedly from the figures published in the cited CRS source document.
But some simple math using the figures listed on page 7 of the CRS report reveals that the figures for several of the years under Clinton are inflated, while figures for some of the years under Bush are downplayed.
Snopes has also debunked the military deaths email as well.
Yes, it appears WND used this false spam email as the basis for its own article, despite touting the work as "a WND investigation."
WND's main contribution appears to be using correct fatality numbers to arrive at its conclusion. But as we detailed, comparing raw fatality numbers, as WND and the spam email did, fails to take in account the total number of military members among which the deaths occured. In fact, the rate of military fatalities was higher in 2005, the latest year for which full fatality statistics were available, than at any other time in the 26-year time frame examined.
Curiously, none of this history is mentioned by WND -- perhaps because while WND corrects the email's faulty numbers, it embraces its faulty premise.
This isn't the first time the ConWeb has based articles on spam email. In 2004, Newsmax simply reprinted the contents of a spam -- faulty numbers and all -- purporting to list the differences between counties that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and those that went for Al Gore.