ConWeb Mostly Mum on McCain-Liddy Link Topic: The ConWeb
Following David Letterman's mention of John McCain's links to domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy during McCain's appearance on Letterman's "Late Show" Oct. 16, one would think it would have gained mention somewhere on the ConWeb.
One would be mostly wrong.
Newsmax,NewsBusters, CNSNews, the Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media all maintained silence about Letterman's mention. WorldNetDaily didn't mention it either, but an Oct. 17 column by token liberal Bill Press detailed Liddy's dirty deeds without noting Letterman.
New Article: The Palin Brigade Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb had a mission: Make Sarah Palin look good despite the facts, and impugn the motives of her critics. Mission accomplished. Read more >>
ConWeb Gives Palin A Pass on 'Bridge to Nowhere' Lie Topic: The ConWeb
It's no surprise that the ConWeb would be in the tank for John McCain and Sarah Palin. It lives up to that reputation by generally failing to hold Palin accountable for a lie she told.
Palin has repeatedly claimed that she opposed the proposed "bridge to nowhere" from Ketichian to Gravina Island in Alaska, adding that she "told Congress, 'Thanks but no thanks' for that bridge to nowhere." In fact, Palin told Congress no such thing; Congress deleted the earmark for the bridge a year before Palin became Alaska governor (but allowed Alaska to keep the money for other projects, and Palin made no effort to return that money to the feds), Palin supported the bridge as a gubernatorial candidate and as governor, and she "killed" the bridge in 2007 only after it was abundantly clear that it would never receive federal funding.
The main ConWeb news outlets -- CNSNews.com, Newsmax and WorldNetDaily -- have made little effort to to tell its readers the truth about Palin's lie:
CNS has not referenced the claim at all.
WorldNetDaily uncritically reported in an Aug. 29 article by Art Moore that Palin "notably killed the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' project, but has otherwise avoided mentioning it on its news pages; a Sept. 5 column by token liberal Bill Press points out that "she was for 'The Bridge to Nowhere' until last week, when she suddenly came out against it."
Newsmax has run wirearticles pointing the bogus nature of Palin's claim, but original Newsmax article have sought to obscure the facts. An Aug. 31 column by Ronald Kessler claimed that "As governor, she opposed a federal earmark for the $400 million so-called bridge to nowhere," followed by a Sept. 7 column claiming that "she ultimately opposed a federal earmark for the $400 million so-called "bridge to nowhere." A Sept. 10 article by Phil Brennan uncritically repeated a claim by Republican Rep. Jim DeMint that "Although Palin once supported the bridge, she killed the project in her own state." And a Sept. 8 "analysis" dismissed an Obama commercial's claim that "was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it" as a "political attack," without bothering to note that it's true.
Remember: The ConWeb really is in the tank for McCain and Palin to a greater extent than they accuse the "liberal media" of being in the tank for Obama. Which makes their political reporting suspect at best and, at worst, untrustworthy.
ConWeb Repeats Dubious MRC Study Topic: The ConWeb
Both WorldNetDaily (in an Aug. 20 article by Bob Unruh) and Newsmax (in an Aug. 20 article by Jim Meyers) uncriticially repeat the Media Research Center's assertion in a study that Barack Obama received unduly positive coverage from the broadcast media before winning the Democratic presidential nomination. Unruh and Meyers praised the MRC study as "comprehensive" and "exhaustive," respectively, but both refused to note contradictory views -- specifically, a Center for Media and Public Affairs study finding that Obama has received overwhelmingly negative network news coverage since winning the nomination.
As we've noted, both studies can't be right, since the likelihood of network coverage of Obama shifting from highly positive to highly negative in a day's time is virtually nil. Since the CMPA is a historically conservative-leaning organization, and the MRC has not challenged the findings of the CMPA study to our knowledge, one can deduce which study must be the flawed one.
UPDATE: An Aug. 22 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas does the same thing.
New Article: The Tabloid Double Standard Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb bashes the National Enquirer when it reports salacious claims against conservatives, but treats it as gospel when it reports salacious claims against liberals. Read more >>
Savage's Boss Has Wackier Ideas About Autism Than Savage Does Topic: The ConWeb
Remember Michael Savage's comments about autism, how "[i]n 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out"? Ever wonder where Savage got such an idea? It may have come from his boss.
Savage's syndicator, Talk Radio Network, is operated by the Roy Masters family (Masters' son, Mark Masters, is TRN's CEO). As we've detailed, Masters heads the Foundation of Human Understanding and has been accused of being a cult leader who sways disciples through hypnosis and meditation. (Masters also has ties to WorldNetDaily, which, among other things, hosts Savage's website.) Masters hosts a TRN-syndicated overnight radio show.
ConWebWatch has discovered an audio clip of the July 22 edition of Masters' show, in which he addressed the controversy over Savage's remarks. Masters not only declared that "Savage is dead right," he claimed autism is caused by "[b]ad parenting" and cited the pursuit of "the benefits the parent gets for having their children pronounced with autism." He also appears to blame dominating moms and weak dads: "And you, sir, who just sit on the fence crying like a rooster. Well, one of these days you’ll wake up, you’ll cackle like a hen and become a homosexual or something because you’re not a man to let this happen to your children."
From the July 22 edition of Talk Radio Network's "Advice Line Overnight With Roy Masters":
MASTERS: So, I will discuss autism with -- the kind of induced autism, the one that is induced by inoculations and, of course, people are born that way, which is a very small number indeed, but most of them are made that way by the school, by parents, and I -- I’ve seen some awful things in my life, how parents treat their children, especially the bright ones. They demoralize their own children. And those are the parents, possibly, who misunderstood what Savage says, the parents who destroyed their own children. And don’t you think parents don’t destroy their own children? Most parents do to some degree. Some of them are just simply practicing Munchausen by proxy. They create the problem and then -- unconsciously create the problem and yet -- and if you’re bright enough, you can actually see some of those people when they’re interviewed on television, you can see the mother -- I’ve seen one where the mother was degrading this boy right in front, talking to him like he was a stupid idiot. The kid was as bright as he could be, and the silly little stupid old father sat there and let it happen. And -- but the trouble is if don’t look at it right because we’re all kind of nuts in some way. We’re all sympathetic for the mama to put up with this poor little kid, but she’s created it. She created it, and the father, well, he just lets it happen. He sits like a rooster on the fence. And so therefore, whatever happens, he don’t get any blame. So, that’s how he thinks anyway.
So, anyway, we can talk about that if you want to, but there’s very few cases of real autism. It’s all created. And the medicine, medical people -- I told you about medicine, and I told you the other night about the VA, that the country -- don’t you get it? The country is infected. It’s infiltrated with our enemies. This is not paranoia. It’s a fact. They go for the health – the healthcare system. They go for the social services and healthcare system, so they can decide what disease is, and what common sense it is and what it isn’t. And that’s what’s wrong with the schools. I heard one of the politicians running for president, I just heard him say -- I’m not going to give any credit to any one of them, but you can guess which one it is if you like. Just -- I just want to say what he said. He said “I know there’s something wrong with the school system” -- this is not his words exactly, but my interpretation of it. He says, “But the problem with the school system, the worst place you can find this is in the inner city, the black schools.” Now, how did black schools get the worst share of the system? Is it the Republicans? No. It’s always the left that have degrading, always degrading, always degrading. The people always demoralizing and robbing us of our -- our -- our sovereignty. And the school system, you won’t find any -- hardly any normal people there. You’ll find all these lef- wing people who are on a payroll and they’re programmed to demoralize your children. And then, of course, it’s Munchausen by proxy again. See, so the children don’t do well in school, so they get drugs so they can pay attention to the crap they give them -- excuse me for saying that. They’re not learning anything, they’re being brainwashed, socialized, sensitized to their environment so they can’t think for themselves. That’s what’s happening.
So, what do you do with seven million children -- someone want to correct me? It’s bad enough if it’s three million, I’m just hoping someone correct -- no, it’s not seven, it’s only three. So, in my day it wasn’t like that at all. We didn’t have that much of problems at school, it was halfway decent. Wasn’t the greatest education in the world that I came from, but it wasn’t like it is today. And in England it’s even worse. We’re not far behind them. And there’s the -- these pharmaceuticals, they’re having a heyday on the demoralization of our children. And all the sick parents are out -- yeah, you want to call me? You call me. Now, I understand, and I give it to you, some children are born that way, but most of them are made that way. Bad parenting, see, and the benefits the parent gets for having their children pronounced with autism. Actually, Savage is dead right. And you have a problem with me? You call me. I’ll show you who has autism. It’s you, sir, you, ma’am -- mostly you, ma’am. And you, sir, who just sit on the fence crying like a rooster. Well, one of these days you’ll wake up, you’ll cackle like a hen and become a homosexual or something because you’re not a man to let this happen to your children.
OK, now, I’ve said all that, I feel better. I hope you feel worse, but remember, I’ve got no sponsors, I don’t need -- it’s just you. Look, if you have an autistic child, I’ll show you how to fix him if you’ve done it. So why don’t you own up to it? It could be you. It could be you, sir, letting your wife do it while you’re away. It could be that you have a bright, beautiful kid there and you can’t tolerate his brightness, any more than you can tolerate Savage’s brightness, or mine for that matter. And you won’t dare to pick up the phone and call me or him for that matter. All you can do is get together like a big bunch of cowards you are.
Return of the ConWeb's Tabloid Double Standard Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb loves to denounce salacious news about Republicans as worthy of only the supermarket tabloids, if that, while salaccious news about Democrats is always considered to be front-page news in real newspapers.
For instance, earlier this year, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell denounced New York Times article suggesting that John McCain might have been involved in an extramarital affair as "rumor and gossip, fit to print only for the likes of the National Enquirer." Yet posters at the MRC's NewsBusters blog want the mainstream media to print rumors about an affair involving Democrat John Edwards that surfaced in, yes, the National Enquirer.
Tim Graham, who huffed back in February that "The 'news' alleging adultery against McCain is not 'fit to print,'" now finds in a July 24 post that news alleging adultery against Edwards is quite fit to print:
The double-standard here clearly looks partisan -- Edwards vs [Larry] Craig, or Mark Foley. There's also another standard that strangely kicks in. Trivial sexual matters like toe-tapping and scuzzy Internet messaging are more likely to get coverage than charges that raise more serious questions like cheating on a dying wife (or charges of raping a political supporter, as in the Juanita Broaddrick charges). Reporters laughed and joked about Craig and Foley. They're not laughing when the shoe is on the foot of their favorites.
There is a double standard all right, and it's Graham's. In portraying Edwards and Craig as equivalent scandals, we have rumors that everyone involved is denying vs. an actual guilty plea in court to an actual criminal charge.
Elsewhere at NewsBusters, Dave Pierre howled that "the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers from writing about the reported affair between Sen. John Edwards and a blonde named Rielle Hunter. And P.J. Gladnick is concerned that Wikipedia refuses "to allow their John Edwards entry to be updated with mention of the alleged scandal which was reported in the National Enquirer with many of the details confirmed by Fox News." In fact, Fox News confirmed nothing beyond one person making the affair allegations was a hotel guard -- not the purported affair itself.
So far the only cracks in the MSM wall of silence on this matter have come only in the form of opinion columns. However, it will be increasingly difficult in the days to come for the MSM to refrain from reporting on this. Unlike the days before the Web, such a story cannot remain permanently on ice. There are just too many sources already covering it and for the MSM to refrain from reporting on this scandal just makes them look even more foolish than they already are.
Never mind, of course, that there's no actual verification that any of this actually took place.
Meanwhile, over at Newsmax -- with its own history of double standards regarding tabloid-sourced material -- James Hirsen goes into concern-troll mode:
This is a man who ran as a serious candidate for leader of the free world and whose wife is bravely battling cancer. Still, the mainstream media for the most part have remained mum.
[...]
Is this the two Americas Edwards was talking about — one whose residents recklessly play around but don’t get busted, another whose residents get pummeled in the media for the same activities but whose reputations are left at death’s door?
Again, there's no actual evidence that Edwards did what he's accused of doing. Hirsen is the one who wants to make sure Edwards' reputation is "left at death’s door."
This is the same Newsmax, by the way, that used to claim that the Enquirer was targeting Republicans because the head of an investment group that owns the tabloid was once an official in the Clinton administration.
It's the same old double standard -- the ConWeb is disturbed by tabloid sleaze only when it's about Republicans.
McCain's defenders – in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech – forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.
We can recognize and honor McCain's indescribably grueling POW experiences without taking the leap of arguing they automatically qualify him as an ideal commander in chief. His qualifications should be evaluated on the merits, not on sentimental appeals to his service.
Understandably, I suppose, pundits often glibly assert that one of McCain's many advantages is his character – a character that was molded by the hardships he endured. McCain's captivity undeniably involved more character building than anything most of us will ever experience. But to say he is a rugged, battle-tested hero does not mean he is incapable of prevarication, opportunism, demagoguery or other mischief. Nor does it immunize him from scrutiny concerning the credible claim that he lacks the temperament to be president.
Wesley Clark? Code Pink? Some other Obama-loving liberal?
Nope -- conservative David Limbaugh, in a Jan. 25 syndicated column. Funny, we don't recall hearing anyone complain then that Limbaugh was "degrading" McCain's service.
The nutty American Family Association, not busy enough censoring TV programs and such, has programmed its OneNewsNow website, including news searches, to replace the word "gay" in every use with homosexual.
Homosexual breaks Greene's US record in 100 at trials
Jun 29, 2008 ... Tyson Homosexual got quite a fright in his first race Saturday. He set a record in his second. Homosexual broke Maurice Greene's American ...
For those of you who don't read the sports pages: The reference is to Tyson Gay, the former UA sprinter, who just ran the fastest 100 meters ever.
UPDATE: The Washington Post talks to OneNewsNow news director, who says, "We don't object to the word 'gay' " except "when it refers to people who practice a homosexual lifestyle." And the "G" word has "been co-opted by a particular group of people." But numerous words have been co-opted over the centuries; why focus on un-co-opting this particular one?
That's an argument we've heard before. The Washington Times used to claim that the reason it wouldn't use "gay" was to fight "against Orwellian abuse of the English language" and for "preservation of the language." (The Times has since changed its policy and is now using"gay" like everyone else does.)
In the ConWeb, CNSNews.com generally refuses to use the word "gay," and WorldNetDaily uses it only in scare quotes. Neither have publicly explained their reasons for doing so.
New Article: Love Like (Demographic) Winter Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb raises the alarm about declining birth rates and embraces the idea (if not the fervent hope) that only white Christians will, and must, continue to breed. Read more >>
Matt Barber's New Gig Topic: The ConWeb
Matt Barber, whose anti-gay activism we profiled earlier this year, is leaving Concerned Women for America to work as associate dean for career and professional development with Liberty University Law School and director for cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, the school's right-wing legal organization. (h/t Pandagon)
Traitor! Judas! The ConWeb's Anti-McClellan Frenzy Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb is reaching new heights of frenzied hate toward Scott McClellan for daring to criticize President Bush.
In a column published June 9 at Newsmax and June 7 at WorldNetDaily, Pat Boone denounced McClellan as a Judas:
The last thing an honorable man, a patriot, would do is publicly undermine the character and leadership of our nation’s commander in chief while we’re at war. No patriot would knowingly aid and abet our enemies, the ones who’ve killed over 4000 of our fellow citizens and are determined to kill more of us, by proclaiming to the world that our president is a liar, a fraud, incompetent, and willing to send those under his command into futile, unjustified danger.
But a dishonest, unpatriotic man might do all that, especially if he could find some of his chief’s domestic enemies who would pay him a lot of money to do it.
[...]
Go on all the talk shows, Scott, and try to convince everybody you acted out of conscience and duty and greater loyalty; exult over the 30 pieces of silver as they pour in; and dream about getting a good job from someone who might still trust you.
I’m not suggesting you, like the other Judas, just go out and hang yourself. You’ve already done that.
Meanwhile, in a June 10 Accuracy in Media column, Jerry Zeifman asserted that coverage of McClellan permitted him to indulge in "some painful remembrances of past treasons. Zeifman claimed without evidence that McClellan's book "gives aid and comfort to the enemy" but lamented that "it is unlikely that a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the felony defined in the U.S. Criminal Code."
Zeifman cited Joe Kennedy as one of those "past treasons" for opposing U.S. entry into World War II and seeking "to obtain an audience with Adolf Hitler" in 1938, he doesn't mention as similarly treasonous Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the current President Bush, who did business with the Nazis.
Zeifman, you may recall, is the guy who claimed that he fired Hillary Clinton from a House Judiciary Committee post investigating Watergate, despite having insisting a decade earlier that he didn't have the authority to fire her. As we'venoted, Zeifman is a self-proclaimed "lifelong Democrat" who likes to bash Democrats on right-wing websites.
New Article -- Clinton Derangement Syndrome: The Evidence Topic: The ConWeb
Hillary Clinton's presidential run has inspired the ConWeb to spew all manner of hatred at her and her husband (again). Read more >>
ConWeb Doesn't Find Judicial Watch Complaint Against McCain Newsworthy Topic: The ConWeb
We've previously reported that WorldNetDaily, CNSNews.com and Newsmax all regurgitated a claim by Judicial Watch that a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton at which Elton John performed was illegal because John is a foreign national and prohibited from contributing to a U.S. presidential campaign -- while failing to even mention that John McCain held a fundraiser in London a couple weeks earlier. We also noted that Judicial Watch itself hadn't expressed any concern about McCain's foreign fundraiser either.
Judicial Watch has now turned its attention to McCain. From its April 24 press release:
“Recent news reports suggest that Sen. John McCain and John McCain for President may have accepted an in-kind contribution from foreign nationals Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild of Great Britain in contravention of federal election laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in a complaint letter dated April 22, 2008. “On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate the matter.”
Now that Judicial Watch has given its imprimatur to possible campaign law violations involving McCain, the ConWeb is all over that like they are all over JW's allegations against Hillary, right?
Er, no. More than a week has passed since JW released its complaint against McCain, and WND, CNS and Newsmax have all failed to even mention it, let alone devote an entire article to it as they did for JW's Clinton complaint.
We've previously detailed how the ConWeb -- a major promoter of JW's numerous complaints against the Clinton administration in the late 1990s -- has a history of generally refusing to report on JW's complaints against Republicans.
CNSNews.com, Newsmax (reprinting the CNS article) and WorldNetDaily all bite on a Judicial Watch press release, regurgitating its claims that Elton John's recent fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's campaign was illegal because John is a foreign national and prohibited from contributing to a U.S. presidential campaign. None of the articles makes an effort to contact Clinton's campaign or offer any contradictory view.
Further, none of the outlets mentions -- presumably because Judicial Watch didn't put it in the press release -- that John McCain held a campign fundraiser in London last month. As the Washington Post reported, an invitation sent out by the campaign says the fundraiser was organized "by kind permission of Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild." Gee, sounds like a foreign national contributing to a presidential campaign to us.
Indeed, we could find no reference whatsoever to McCain's fundraiser on the Judicial Watch website. Is that because JW is slipping back into its old double-standard ways of attacking the Clintons and nobody else? Perhaps, since it knows that the ConWeb will just mindlessly repeat whatever Clinton-bashing it spews out.
