A May 9 Newsmax article on pay for military personnel carries the headline: "Outrage: Obama Administration Targets Military for Pay Reductions."
That headline is a lie. As the Washington Post article that Newsmax based its article on states, The Obama administration is not proposing a "pay reduction" for military personnel, it is proposing a smaller pay increase than Congress:
The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases. Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent.
Proposing a smaller raise is not proposing a "pay reduction."
UPDATE: On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin links to the Newsmax story and repeats the false headline: "Soldier pay decreases in the midst of overspending elsewhere and government union pay raises? Seriously? What are our priorities?"
A May 6 CNSNews.com article (as posted at Free Republic) by Fred Lucas carried the headline, "Gibbs Can't Say, Won’t Check, If Obama Used Sexual Slur Against Tea Party Activists." The article began, "White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he did not know and could not imagine asking President Barack Obama whether he used the vulgar sexual term 'tea baggers' to describe Americans active in the Tea Party movement."
But Lucas didn't tell the whole story -- as the transcript of the May 6 White House press briefing shows, Gibbs added, "I can’t imagine I’m going to ask the President that. But I will entertain it. ... I will check."
So CNS had to walk it back. Lucas' article now begins with a correction:
Correction: An initial posting of this CNSNews.com story by Fred Lucas had incorrectly reported that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in his Thursday, May 6, 2010 press briefing that he would not check if President Barack Obama had used the term “tea baggers” to describe activists in the Tea Party movement. In response to a question about whether President Obama had used the term tea baggers, Gibbs actually said, “I can’t imagine I’m going to ask the President that. But I will entertain it.” Gibbs later added, “I will check.”
So CNS does make corrections after all. It still hasn't corrected Matt Cover's false claim that when then-Transportation Security Administration director nominee Erroll Southers referred to some groups that post a domestic security threat as being "Christian-identity oriented,"he was referring to a specific extremist group called Christian Identity and not to Christianity in general.
WND's Meaningless New Anti-'Amnesty' Scheme Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has a new money-making scheme.
In the tradition of its dubious and factually inaccurate "pink slip" campaign, WND has concocted a new letter-writing campaign designed to fleece its readers. This time, WND will send a letter on your behalf to all 100 senators that opposes "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
Just one problem: At no point in the letter or the WND article promoting it is "amnesty" defined. The article suggests that "comprehensive immigration reform" is the same thing as "amnesty," but it offers no explanation of why this is so. Instead, we're treated to Joseph Farah ranting that "Amnesty will tear this country apart" and "Americans will not accept the destruction of their country lying down."
Farah will, however, shamlessly embrace making a buck off of people's fears.
WND is also playing the same numbers game it did with the "pink slip" campaign, promoting the number of letters issued rather than the (unimpressive) number of people WND has fleeced to send them. It's now touting that it's sent "50,000 individual letters to senators in the first week"; if you do your math and divide that by 100, that's only 500 people who have taken part.
Newsmax Email Makes False Claim About Obama Topic: Newsmax
A May 6 email to Newsmax's mailing list contains the following subject line: "Insider: Obama May Stop All Oil-Drilling, Wants Lithium."
But the email itself -- a third-party promotion hyping the stock of a company involved with the "miracle mineral" lithium -- doesn't make that claim. Heck, it doesn't even mention Obama at all. And the only mention of oil is in a claim that lithium will "get us off foreign oil sold to us by people who hate us."
So who's responsible for making this utterly false and completely unsubstantiated claim about Obama? Given that the email itself doesn't make this claim, suspicion must fall on Newsmax. It's previously harnessed Obama-bashing to make a buck through shilling investment schemes, so why wouldn't it toss out a casual, libelous smear to plug someone's stock?
The headline of the May 6 CNSNews.com article by Edwin Mora blares: "Pelosi: It’s Cheaper to Treat Teens for Drug Use Than Interdict Drugs at Border." The statement is repeated in the first paragraph of Mora's article.
Mora and CNS are twisting Pelosi's words. They have framed the article to suggest that Pelosi doesn't support interdicting drugs at the border and endorses drug use among teens, which of course is completely false. Mora knows that too -- but he doesn'ty report the full truth until farther down in the article. It's not until the ninth paragraph that he puts Pelosi's words in their proper context: "To solve the drug problem, she said, requires reducing demand."
And it's not until the very end that Mora notes the actual question he asked of Pelosi: "Madame Speaker, the Justice Department has reported that one in five teenagers used illicit drugs last year and that most of those drugs came across the border from Mexico. Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?"
It's a gotcha question, its goal to illogically equate not "sealing the border" with endorsing teen drug use. Such a question penalizes any nuanced answer, and that's exactly what Mora does to Pelosi.
The dozens of outraged comments at the end of the article show that Mora's word-twisting had the intended effect of inflaming anti-Pelosi hatred.
WND also performs a bit of cleverness that the rest of us would call a false claim. The "conspiracy website" WND is referring to, ObamaConspiracy.org, is not a "conspiracy website"; rather, it debunks conspiracy theories -- like WND's long-held belief that Obama is not an American citizen.
This means that WND is bizarrely suggesting that the people telling the truth about Obama are the real conspiracy theorists. Talk about Bizarro World...
From a March 6 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh:
A longtime veteran of the battle against abortion in the United States says the case of a Philadelphia teen who reportedly was coerced into a late-term abortion by a social services agency can be blamed on government's so-called "death panels."
The issue of "death panels" came up during debate over the Democrats' health-care reform law. Critics said the plan, signed into law in March, included government boards that would approve or refuse certain medical services for some patients.
"Obamacare" supporters denied that such panels existed or would exist, but Troy Newman, president of the pro-life Operation Rescue organization, said the Philadelphia case is evidence they already exist and are operating.
Let's unpack the mendacity, shall we?
Unruh is lying about the existence of "government boards that would approve or refuse certain medical services for some patients." Unruh's couching it in the weasel words of "critics say" is dishonest; at no point does he explain exactly how those "government boards" constitute "death panels," nor does he report the actual truth: there is nosuchthing as "death panels" in the bill.
Even if the "death panels" did exist as right-wingers like Unruh claim they do, the Philadelphia case would not have fallen under their purview. Since WND's reporting is so untrustworthy, we consulted Unruh's original source, the Philadelphia Daily News, which appears to confirm the basic facts. Unsurprisingly, Unruh fails to tell the whole story, filing to mention that the Daily News also reported "a source familiar with the case insisted that the girl was not coerced and that her foster mother, whose first language is Spanish, did not understand the conversation between the girl and the DHS worker."
If true, such alleged coercion raises ethical questions within the Philadelphia Department of Human Services. But coercion is not "approving or refusing certain medical services."
But WND is ObamaHateCentral, and Unruh embraces his opening claim like he's contractually obligated to smear the president.
Newsmax's Ponte Still Lying About MEChA Topic: Newsmax
Lowell Ponte just can't stop lying about MEChA.
In his May 6 Newsmax column about an incident in which a California high school sent four students home for wearing American flag-emblazoned clothing during the school's Cinco de Mayo -- celebrated by "Mexican-American students" he declared to be "brainwashed" -- once again described the Hispanic group MEChA as a "radical organization" that is "working for the reconquest of the Southwest."
As we detailed the last time Ponte made this claim, MEChA has never advocated such a thing in real life, and its references to reconquista are only spiritual.
Klein's Co-Author Not Taking Criticism Well Topic: WorldNetDaily
Brenda J. Elliott, co-author of Aaron Klein's WorldNetDaily-published (and problematic) anti-Obama tome "The Manchurian President," doesn't like what we wrote about her PR agent. After highlighting a blogger who claimed Klein's book "is being shunned and bastardized by the conglomerate media and their 'Handlers'" (while misspelling the name of Tim McVeigh and the name of the building he blew up), Elliott writes:
The reference may also be to the hideously ridiculous suggestion made by George Soros-funded, Media Matters/ConWebWatch lackey Terry Krepel’s Cass Sunstein-inspired nudge-toward-the-exits piece, WND’s PR Agent Torpedoes Her Career. Enough said.
We're not even sure what that means. But whatever it means, it's clear Elliott doesn't understand what we wrote. So here's another stab at it.
Maria Sliwa's job as a PR agent is to schmooze the media into giving attention to whatever it is you're promoting. If you instead publicize the negative reaction by certain members of the media to what you're promoting in order to make them look bad, however petty that reaction might be, you have set up a situation in which these media members will not promote anything you're involved in, simply because you are involved. You have, therefore, failed as a PR person. Having worked in the newspaper industry, I know I would not be interested in dealing with a PR agent who made me look bad in public.
Plus, as I already noted, in defending her behavior, Sliwa proclaimed herself to be a liberal -- a political philosophy anathema to Joseph Farah and WND. She has given WND a reason never to hire her again -- try to find a liberal anywhere else on the WND payroll -- and, since she betrayed trust among members of the media, promoting anything else, even a non-WND product, has become increasingly difficult. Thus, Sliwa has failed twice.
If we're wrong, perhaps Elliott or Sliwa could explain instead of offering illogical ridicule.
Is Robert Ringer Advocating Violence Against Obama? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Robert Ringer writes in his May 7 WorldNetDaily column:
So, is Chairman Obama a communist or a mere socialist? No one can say with certainty what's in his heart, but my own feeling is that he would quite enjoy establishing a totalitarian government where the state owns all means of production with the aim of establishing a stateless society.
Don't allow your logic to get sidetracked by oil spills, union-inspired riots in Arizona, or BHO's wisecracks at elegant media functions about his birth certificate and his socialist policies. What is happening in Washington is not just another little shift to the left. It's a prelude to the coming insurrection.
If you don't believe me, by all means feel free to join the walking dead and cheer on BHO and his comrades as they continue with their plan to nationalize whole industries and collapse the U.S. economy through deficit spending.
Make no mistake about it: Criminal government in Washington is on a roll and moving forward at full throttle – and its momentum can be stopped only by a defiant and vigilant populace, a populace that clearly understands there is no last communist.
Wake up, America!
Given that it is illogical for a seated president to be described as leading an insurrection -- the word is defined as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government" -- Ringer appears to be advocating an "insurrection" against Obama. And given his use of charged words like "insurrection" and "defiant," Ringer would likely not be disppointed if the "insurrection" he's calling for is armed and violent-- especially given that Ringer defines Obama as among the "one-third of the population" who "get their inspiration from M.M.M. (Mass Murderer Mao), and the barrel of a gun as the final arbiter is ingrained in their twisted minds."
'The Manchurian President,' Dissected Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've had the distinct pleasure of fact-checking Aaron Klein's WorldNetDaily-published book "The Manchurian President" -- and we found a mishmash of false and misleading claims, conspiracy theories, an embrace of birtherism, and a heavy dose of guilt by assocation (despite Klein's claim in the book's introduction that "We do not believe in 'guilt by association'").
Harvey Revives Discredited Attack on Jennings Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a May 6 WorldNetDaily column castigating Goldman Sachs for being "a major donor to GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network," Linda Harvey revives an old, discredited smear about GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings, claiming that he "wrote about one incident as a teacher where he apparently condoned sex between a teen boy and an adult male."
As we've detailed, that's a malicious distortion of events -- the student in question has stated that he was 16 (and thus of legal age of consent) at the time of his counseling by Jennings, and has also stated that he had "no sexual contact with anybody at the time."
Harvey also misleads about GLSEN's list of recommended books for students on gay issues: "The 'Book Link' on the GLSEN site lists resources the organization recommends to "support" students. I reviewed selected books from the list and found jaw-dropping descriptions of grade-school masturbation, student porn use, explicit teen heterosexual and homosexual episodes, gender-bending, homosexual hook-ups via the Internet and sex between underage teens and adults. All were described either positively or neutrally, as if this conduct is typical, manageable, legal and low-risk." Harvey fails to mention that the list is accompanied by a statement in big red type that "We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability."
Matthew Vadum Strikes Again Topic: Capital Research Center
We've had our encounters with the dickish Matthew Vadum (who, if you'll recall, thinks we're "largely responsible for the civil unrest that is growing across America"); now our Media Matters colleague Simon Maloy gets a taste.
After Vadum embraced Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is secretly sending in special teams to "nudge" the U.S. toward "collapse" (while conceding he has "no proof" this is actually occurring), Maloy highlighted it. This drew an indignant response from Vadum, who proudly declared, "My work on the Left is cited repeatedly in the new Aaron Klein book, The Manchurian President. Eat shit, Media Matters."
We, along with Maloy, are reading Klein's book, and Maloy accurately describes it as "a sloppy, guilt-by-association smear job." Further, one of the Vadum works cited in the book is his false claim that White House staffer Patrick Gaspard worked for ACORN.
Congratulations, Matt. Not only do you look bad, you're making Aaron Klein look bad too.
Another Round of Catholic-Bashing At AIM Topic: Accuracy in Media
Over the past week, Accuracy in Media has engaged in another round of Catholic-bashing.
An April 29 column by Cliff Kincaid attacks "the shameful role of the Roman Catholic Church in facilitating the foreign invasion of the U.S.," which he claims "deserves as much attention as the seemingly never-ending cases of sexual child abuse involving priests." Kincaid asserts that "Catholic officials want to encourage illegal immigration" because "Most of the illegal aliens are Catholics. Plus, the church makes lots of government money by hosting and serving the immigrants." Kincaid adds, "These facts are considered by some to be anti-Catholic, which is why you seldom read or hear about them in the major media." Kincaid also highlights a writer who claims "that the Roman Catholic Church is aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of America from Mexico because the illegals are almost all Roman Catholics."
Kincaid followed on April 30 by complaining that a May Day immigrant rally in Washington is "financially supported by the Catholic Church."
On May 2, Kincaid bashes Catholic bishops for opposing the harsh anti-immigrant law in Arizona, repeating claims made by Minuteman group founder Jim Gilcrhist (with Jerome Corsi) that "Churches pander to illegal aliens, seeking financial windfalls when more church members come across the borders. This is especially true of the Catholic Church, because so many of the Mexicans coming here are Catholic."
MRC Blames Newsweek Woes on (What Else?) Liberal Bias Topic: Media Research Center
We've previously detailed how the Media Research Center reflexively blames liberal bias for, well, pretty much everything. So it surprises exactly no one that the MRC would blame Newsweek's problems -- the Washington Post Co. has decided to sell the newsmagazine -- on liberal bias as well.
A May 5 NewsBusters post by Brent Baker claimed that Newsweek "repeatedly showcased their favorite candidate, Barack Obama, on the cover" and asked, "Might such obvious blatant liberal advocacy, which anyone could see in the grocery store checkout line, help explain its decline in fortunes – in credibility followed by finances?"
A May 6 TimesWatch post kept up the drumbeat, complaining that a New York Times article failed to mention "Newsweek's purposeful shift toward liberal opinion over news-gathering."
Completely missing at the MRC, meanwhile, is any claim about Newsweek that deviates from its right-wing talking points, or any serious analysis of its problems. Slate's Jack Shafer and Reuters' Felix Salmon, for example, offer insightful looks at Newsweek's problems, as does Chris Rovzar at New York magazine.
You won't find such analyses discussed -- let alone acknowledged -- at the MRC. Why? If they can't frame it in their liberal-bias tunnel-vision template, it doesn't exist.