In his April 13 WorldNetDaily column, Joseph Farah does the only thing he knows how to do when confronted by the fact that his "news" organization has gotten facts wrong: act petulant and attack his accuser.

This time, the person on the receiving end is Salon's Justin Elliott. His offense: asking if Donald Trump was correct to claim that President Obama has spent millions of dollars to fight lawsuits over his birth certificate. As we've noted, WND has proven only that the Obama campaign paid money to a law firm but not that all of the money -- or even any of it -- went toward fighting birther-related lawsuits.

First, Farah claimed that Elliott gave him "all of one hour and 26 minutes to respond" to the query before publishing his article -- an utterly hypocritical assertion given that WND frequently fails to even bother obtaining both sides to many of the "news" articles it runs, let alone give that side sufficient time to respond.

Farah then asserted that "Obama has used the cover of his taxpayer-supported office to devote far more than $2 million in financial resources to cover up whatever he's hiding on his birth certificate" -- but as before, he offers no evidence to back up this claim. Then, after noting that Elliott reported that "this figure is based on shoddy reporting by a discredited birther website and lacks any evidence to back it up," he asserts: "Never once in his article does Elliott explain how WND has been 'discredited' or why reporter Chelsea Schilling's series is 'shoddy.' So much for "backing up the lead," as we say in the news business."

In fact, Elliott did exactly that in his Salon article:

The implication of the WND stories -- though not explicitly stated -- is that because Perkins Coie worked on a birther suit, and because the Obama campaign paid Perkins Coie $1.7 million, therefore the campaign paid $1.7 million fighting birther suits. That's an obvious logical fallacy.

Indeed, just last month Roll Call published a look at the Obama campaign's post-election legal spending -- now totaling $2.8 million, most of it to Perkins Coie. DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan told the paper: "The campaign has incurred ordinary legal expenses related to the wind-down of its operations and other legal services which all campaigns incur and which are proportional to the unprecedented size of this campaign."

So, having ignored and misrepresented the issue, it was insult time, his usual response to criticism. Farah smeared Elliott as a "sissified, left-wing blogger" who is "pretending to do journalism," published his bio from his previous employer, and compared it to that of Chelsea Schilling, who wrote the original WND articles, laughably embellished by Farah "because she's too modest to tell you herself." Farah writes that Schilling is "one of the most remarkable young women I have ever met" and "is like a daughter to me."

What Farah won't tell you: Schilling has a mile-long rap sheet of falsehoods and misinformation in her work for WND.

What Farah also won't tell you: how pissy he got when Elliott asked why WND made Jack Cashill's false claim about a picture of Obama's grandparents simply disappear instead of publishing a formal correction. Farah called Ellott a "worm" during that exchange.

Farah asked readers to compare the two bios (despite the obvious bias in one of them), adding: "Which one would you rather have dinner with? Which one would you most trust to babysit your kids? Which one would you most likely hire if you had the choice? Which one seems more trustworthy?"

Trustworthy? That pretty much rules out Farah and Schilling, doesn't it?

Farah concludes by stating that "we stand by Schilling's three reports – every word of them." At no point did he or Schilling provide evidence that every cent of the money the Obama campaign paid to a law firm went toward birther claims -- then or now.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:45 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:50 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

As I've said before (and will say again): We must remember that this isn't about Barack Hussein Obama. A minority of shiftless, callow malcontents have capitalized on the indolence and good nature of the American people in order to manifest their decades-long quest for power. The upshot of the processes they implemented is an administration that has appropriated authority reserved for the legislature and judiciary. This was ostensibly done to address severe economic distress, which was actually brought on by some who became principals in this administration. Activists and thugs in collusion with said administration maneuver to foment civil unrest and further economic upheaval as they clandestinely re-write our Constitution. This president's fast and furious spending has some convinced it is actually his intention to utterly decimate the U.S. economically.

-- Erik Rush, March 31 WorldNetDaily column

Mr. President, this has gone on long enough. You have refused to be candid with the American people whose trust you evidently desire and whom you are required to represent honorably. You have, in effect, erected a wall behind which you give the distinct impression of hiding. There are far too many questions you resolutely decline to answer, far too many mysteries which, by a modicum of simple disclosures, you could easily dispel in a single day. Indeed, so many riddles and puzzles have accumulated about you that, if they are not addressed, they will inevitably bring your presidency into increasing disrepute. At some point, the sphinx must speak.

-- David Solway, March 31 WorldNetDaily column

Jews and Iranians, having been very successful in the United States, both financially and socially, have much political power to exert. Jews – at least the non-leftist ones – have sought in the past to use this political power and have succeeded in large part. Through lobbying and other means, in the past they have "convinced" most American lawmakers and government officials at least not to harm Israel. But now, with a President Barack Hussein Obama, who is a latent anti-Semite Israel hater, the task has become much more difficult. Obama and his compromised secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have recently threatened Israel by stating that they, along with the "Quartet" – which also is composed of the United Nations, Russia and the European Union – will impose a Palestinian state on the Jewish nation, if it does not accede to Palestinian demands.

As for Iranian freedom, the "mullah in chief" would rather get down on his knees and beg for understanding and forgiveness of America from the Muslims in Tehran than take a strong stand and support the Iranian freedom movement.

-- Larry Klayman, April 2 WorldNetDaily column

In the 1979 TV movie "The Birth of the Beatles," there's a scene at the end where three of the band members dump drummer Pete Best and replace him with Ringo Starr before traveling to America.

"He's not a Beatle," Lennon says of Best. "He's not one of us."

Well, after two years as president, a growing number of Americans have come to the same conclusion about Barack Hussein Obama.

He's not one of us.

[...]

One thing we do know is that the president's name is Barack Hussein Obama, although we're told that we're racist or xenophobic or something terribly awful if we ever even mention his middle name.

All right, then let's start calling him Barack Who's-he? Obama.

Maybe then we'll get some answers.

-- Tom Flannery, April 7 WorldNetDaily column

Obama takes sides in the Islamic world only when the dissidents are hostile to U.S. interests or seeking to overthrow a U.S. ally, not when they support U.S. goals. This Islamist tilt is also seen in many of his appointments, particularly in the State Department and national-security staff.

We do not have to think Obama is a secret Muslim to call him out on his pro-Islamist foreign policy. Plenty of American leftists have been in that camp for decades. In fact, what seems to be happening in U.S. politics is a three-party merger of leftist ideology, one-world multiculturalism and Islamist interests. What is emerging is a strange stew of leftist sympathies for every policy tilt that is anti-capitalist and pro-Third World wealth transfers. Let's call it multicultural socialism until a better name comes along.

-- Tom Tancredo, April 9 WorldNetDaily column

Have you ever asked yourself the question: How in the world does Barack Hussein Obama get away with the things he does and the decisions he makes without even a peep from the mainstream media?

Obama has sat back and watched the price of gasoline double since he took office; he put 87,000 oil workers in the gulf out of work with an arbitrary stroke of the pen and doubled the national debt without a word of explanation. The press reported nothing more than his brilliance in these matters.

With the help of the wicked witch of San Francisco, he destroyed the best health-care system in the world while ignoring the will of the people. He sent U.S. Air Force equipment and personnel to bomb Libya without congressional approval, and the press heralded him as a great humanitarian. Never mind that half the world believed he should return his Nobel Peace Prize. Where was the critical analysis from the press so essential to a free and open democracy?

[...]

Just imagine for a moment what George W. Bush would have been put through if he had made the same mistakes or unconstitutional moves. George Bush stopped playing golf when the troops were on the ground. Mr. Obama began. But I won't belabor the point. The double standard exists, and its seems we are all powerless to challenge it.

-- Craig R. Smith, April 11 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 10:23 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Last week, Newsmax sent to its mailing list a promotion for a Pat Boone-endorsed "heart rate monitor watch" that touted an upcoming appearance in the Parade magazine Sunday newspaper supplement:

We have some exciting news!

This weekend some 66 million Americans will read Parade magazine with their Sunday newspaper — and Newsmax will be there!

Parade is running a special article featuring the legendary Pat Boone and his big secret to staying young. Boone teamed up with Newsmax on the piece to come up with a special offer for our popular Heart Rate Monitor Watch!

Well, the Sunday edition of Parade came, and the "special article" turned out to be ... an ad.

The text of the ad is posted on the Newsmax website. It's the usual loss-leader promotion Newsmax specializes in, selling the lead item cheap with trial subscriptions of various Newsmax publications thrown in for free -- which you must unsubscribe from in order to avoid being charged for a full subscription.

Newsmax presumably knows the difference between a news article and an ad, and it was dishonest of them to portray the Boone ad as a "special article."

Posted by Terry K. at 9:49 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

If Donald Trump’s litany of discredited birther claims sounds a bit familiar, that’s because they are: WorldNetDaily has been pushing this stuff for years. Indeed, some of the biggest -- and most inaccurate -- birther claims Trump has made have also been promoted at WND.

Read the rest at Media Matters.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:19 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Yes, Newsmax published this article:

A rising star in the Republican Party, Rep. Paul Ryan’s good looks have not gone unnoticed by the ladies.

Ryan’s new budget proposal which would reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion has everyone talking. However the ladies aren’t commenting on Ryan’s impressive economic policies.

Remarks made on a public bulletin board online called Turnstep.com include the observation, “He has the prettiest eyes in politics.” Numerous blogs refer to the 41 year old as “the GOP heartthrob.”

A father of three and seventh-term congressman, Ryan is also well known for his workout routine, called P90X. Associated Press reports the Ryan also holds exercise sessions for his colleagues, sometimes as often as five times per week.

We haven't seen this level of creepy fawning from Newsmax since Ron Kessler met Mitt Romney's wife.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:28 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

In his April 9 WorldNetDaily column, Ellis Washington does another one of his dialectic symposiums in which imposes his own viewpoints onto the great philosophers of history. This time around, Washington purports to analyze the allegory of Plato's Cave and the idea of the philosopher king. Washington once again invokes Socrates, as well as Plato, Jesus, "realist" St. Thomas Aquinas and "anti-realist" Immanuel Kant.

At one point Washington -- er, "Socrates" -- declares:

Plato hearkens back to the forced suicide I suffered under the Athenian state because I refused to moderate my philosophical teachings. Four centuries later, this ridicule and rejection would happen to another philosopher, Jesus Christ – the greatest philosopher of us all!

Given that, as Washington notes, Socrates lived 400 years before Jesus, it's highly unlikely that he would declare Jesus to be "the greatest philosopher of us all!"

Washington also claims Jesus said:

All earthly knowledge is but mere shadows. My servant St. Paul wrote, "… we see through a glass darkly; but now face to face." I am the light of the world. Light removes darkness and shadows. I transcend reality and the Shadowlands. I told the unbelieving Jewish leaders of my day, "Search the scriptures [Torah]; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Jesus spoke to the "unbelieving Jewish leaders of my day" in 17th-century Old English pronouns? Really?

Posted by Terry K. at 8:52 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Over more than two days, 21 were killed and scores injured. Pastor Jones is on the receiving end of more than 400 death threats. His insurance will be canceled, and he's the target of cyber attacks and property vandalism.

He admits his action was provocative, but it did not justify killings. According to the New York Times, he maintains his mission is to keep spreading the word that Islam and the Quran are instruments of "violence, death and terrorism." He says the FBI told him there's a contract out on him for $2.4 million.

Washington's reaction?

Barack Obama said the desecration of the Quran was "an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."

Sorry, sir. The burning of a book is allowed under our Constitution – and not a word about the killers. Where is your outrage at the burning of Bibles or when Muslims torch Christian churches with worshippers in them?

-- Barbara Simpson, April 11 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 12:47 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Matt Philbin uses a very long April 11 NewsBusters post to complain that hosts MSNBC's "liberal hosts and guests never miss an opportunity to associate today’s conservative movement with the Confederacy, secession, slavery and racism."

What seems to have escaped Philbin: Between the suggestions of secession and expressed fondness for the Confederacy through proclamations by Republican politicians that he documents, conservatives are the ones who brought it up in the first place.

Philbin seems to have no problem with conservatives' use of Confederate metaphors. He's really just complaining that MSNBC highlighted them.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:54 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

As we noted, Jack Cashill's April 7 WorldNetDaily column pushed the ludicrous conspiracy theory that a young Barack Obama had been Photoshopped into a picture of his grandparents; in fact, he had been Photoshopped out of the original picture to create a stupid conpsiracy theory that Cashill fell for hook, line and sinker.

Well, references to that photo and the related conspiracy have been excised from Cashill's column -- but WND has posted no notice that the column has been changed and corrected.

Editing of false claims without notice is pretty standard in the ConWeb, unless the error was so egregious that it went public (like when WND treated an April Fool's story about a Terri Schiavo TV movie as real) and/or presumedly brought lawsuit threats (as Aaron Klein knows).

Salon's Justin Elliott made the mistake of innocently asking WND editor Joseph Farah if it would inform readers that Cashill's column was altered, as well as the evidence behind a previous WND claim that Obama has spent $2 million on fighting legal actions over his "eligibilty" to be president (which Elliott had previously debunked). Elliott got a taste of the thin-skinned wrath Farah shells out when he and/or his website is caught violating basic journalistic standards, like scrubbing a story without issuing a formal correction:

When I pointed this out, Farah fired back (emphasis added):

Jack Cashill is an OPINION columnist. Admittedly, we publish some misinformation by columnists, as does your publication and every other journal that contains opinion. Bill Press seldom gets anything right in his column, but because we believe in providing the broadest spectrum of OPINION anywhere in the news business, we tolerate that kind of thing. Yes, Cashill’s column contained an egregious error, which we corrected almost immediately, which is far more than I expect you to do in what I assume is a NEWS piece you wrote.

I asked Farah if it is standard practice at WND to remove major sections of stories without any correction. To which he responded:

How long have you been in this business, punk? My guess is you were in diapers when I was running major metropolitan newspapers. You call what you wrote a news story? You aren’t fit to carry Chelsea Schilling’s laptop.

Worm.

(Chelsea Schilling is the WND staffer who wrote the stories on which Trump's "$2 million" falsehood is based.)

Notice that Farah never answer Elliott's question about whether WND has a formal correction policy -- perhaps because it doesn't. Anyone who was "running major metropolitan newspapers" as Farah claims to have done would know that those very same papers have a procedure for correcting false claims and alerting their readers to the correction -- something Farah's current operation does not have.

Further, not only has Elliott more than qualified to carry Schilling's laptop (who, by the way, is still listed on the WND masthead as a "staff writer" even though she hasn't written a bylined article in months), she should probably be carrying his laptop given her long record of false and misleading claims (none of which, of course, have been corrected).

Farah's insulting of Elliott is also par for the course -- remember, Farah denigrated me as a "talent-challenged slug" for writing truths about WND that he would rather not have people know about.

Elliott also notes that he got an email from Cashill telling his side of the deletion:

The original photo was apparently released by the Obama campaign in April 2008.  The experts with whom I consulted after the fact were not convinced that the original was legitimate, but they were confident that the photo of the couple together in the video had been reverse-doctored.  The person who sent me the video did so in good faith, and I suspect that the person who created it did so in good faith as well, but my readers depend on me to be right.  So out it went.  That strikes me as responsible journalism, especially since I only added it incidentally as a symbol of the mystery surrounding the Obama campaign.

Of course, actual "responsible journalism" would have involved alerting his readers that the incorrect content was removed, a concept Cashill seems as unfamiliar with as Farah, even though he too has a publishing background -- in Cashill's case, executive editor of a Kansas City business magazine -- that almost assuredly has made use of a corrections policy that requires informing readers of incorrect claims.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:12 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Students observing the Day of Silence will be protesting the alleged system-wide victimization of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, intersexed, queer and questioning students, teachers, janitors, bus drivers and school superintendents, based on heteronormativity and homophobia, stemming from outworn arguments and old attitudes, inevitably leading to bullying and violence.

Got it? Or maybe you are sensing a monumental con job here?

If that's your impression, you would be correct. The Day of Silence, a "student-led" event sponsored for the umpteenth year by the very adult Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), exemplifies the worst of current educational philosophy in the public schools.

In a word, it's dumb.

The DOS operates at the most elementary level of manipulation, propaganda and social engineering. It takes "social justice" nonsense, stirs in unfounded claims of "civil rights," adds a helping of knee-jerk anti-religious prejudice, swirls in teen rebellion, and simmers with disconnected stories of tragedy and heartbreak. Out comes a Hitler Youth product ready to do battle with anyone holding traditional moral values or even common sense.

-- Linda Harvey, April 11 WorldNetDaily column

Posted by Terry K. at 10:04 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Homosexuality is not the only non-heterosexual behavior WorldNetDaily loves to freak out over. It's not terribly fond of transsexuals either.

An April 6 WND article by Bob Unruh misportrays a proposed Maryland law would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity as leading to "coed showers" and "protecting cross-dressing possible sex offenders who gain access to women's locker rooms by alleging they are 'transgendered.'" Unruh generously promotes these misleading claims from right-wing organizations but made no apparent effort to allow anyone to respond to them.

Unruh keeps up the freak-out mode in an April 8 WND article over a new policy at Chicago's Cook County Jail that assigns men and women to cells based on their perceived gender. This story, unlike his other one, is surprisingly balanced; Unruh even talked to a jail official who pointed out that one detainee was a transgendered male who "had been through some surgical procedures already and self-identified as a woman," and that her behavior was improving because she was receiving counseling.

So Unruh is capable of writing a balanced story. Why doesn't he do it more often?

Posted by Terry K. at 5:19 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

You've heard of the Friday night document dump, when politicians release bad news before a weekend begins in the hope that it's overlooked by the media because journalists would rather be doing other things on the weekend.

Well, the Media Research Center managed to create something altogether new: the Friday night petition dump (though the intent probably wasn't to be ignored).

Late on April 8, the MRC's political action division, MRC Action, posted a petition attacking liberal philanthropist George Soros:

Demand the Media Tell the Truth About George Soros and His Plan to Undo America  

Left-wing billionaire George Soros has launched a campaign whose sole purpose is to advance his radical, globalist world order agenda while diminishing American sovereignty...and the liberal media are in on it.

For years, Soros has used his billions to influence elections, fund radical anti-American organizations including ACORN, La Raza, MoveOn.org, NOW and the Center for American Progress -- an organization that is feeding progressive talking points to the Obama administration.

 In fact, Townhall recently listed Soros #1 in their 50 Most Dangerous Liberals in America publication, and still the media are mum about his true intentions and desires for America.

And the media should take the word of a niche, small-circulation right-wing publication that has a history of putting bias before facts because ... ?

The petition continues:

George Soros is bad for America, and the media aren’t saying a word. That’s why the Media Research Center -- the nation’s foremost liberal media watchdog has launched its national “Demand the Media Tell the Truth About George Soros” petition -- alerting the public, and holding the liberal media accountable for their active participation in Soros’ anti-American plans in bringing our nation down.

The MRC is asking for the help of liberty-loving Americans, to rally 25,000 citizen-signers of our petition. They will use this grassroots coalition as leverage against the media to report the truth about George Soros and his true intentions for our nation. As a people we must expose the threats to our freedom and way of life, and push back against those (including the media) that are attempting to reshape our nation. 

No evidence is offered to back up the MRC's claims; rather, it states, "After signing our petition, click submit to go to our special FREE report."

It's not explained why the MRC dumped this petition on a Friday, thus guaranteeing it would be ignored outside of its niche audience. An accompanying NewsBusters post suggests one reason by noting that there are a pair of Soros-related conferences this weekend:

Starting Friday and continuing through the weekend, two George Soros sponsored conferences will take place in New England. In Boston, a "media reform" conference discusses means to “Change the World,” by changing the media. And, while we certainly agree that the media need changing, we’d prefer change that reflected the values of hard-working Americans as opposed to those of a billionaire socialist intent on taking the U.S. down a notch.

A second conference 150 miles north in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire will feature lefty academics and activists planning the best way to remake the global economy with a one world government, global currency, and even more power for anti-American forces in the United Nations.

Unmentioned is the fact that the MRC has accepted funding from a certain other billionaire with a radical agenda -- the Koch brothers.

Releasing a petition on Friday night is hardly the best way to generate attention for it.  But the MRC has a bad habit of being incompetent with publicity.

(Full disclosure: My day job is with Media Matters, which has received funding from Soros.)

Posted by Terry K. at 9:50 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Tim Graham is clearly unable to figure out what to do when someone does actual media research -- as opposed to what he and the Media Research Center (where he is director of media analysis) does, which is well, not media research.

So, predictably, Graham turned up his nose at NPR's David Folkenflik, who analyzed six months of guest lists for the "All-Star Panel" on Fox News' "Special Report"  and found that "the same mix typically prevailed: two clear cut conservatives and one other analyst, sometimes a Democrat or a liberal, but usually a journalist from a non-ideological news outlet." Why? Because his findings run counter to the MRC's talking points.

In an April 9 NewsBusters post, Graham scoffed at the idea that the news outlets like Washington Post would be considered "non-ideological": The Post is a 'non-ideological news outlet'? See the arrogance of media liberals on display." Graham, of course, is proudly displaying the arrogance of media conservatives by portraying any outlet that does not uncritically regurgitate right-wing talking points -- which, of course, Fox News does on a regular basis -- as axiomatically "liberal."

At no point, though, does Graham dispute the basic conclusion of Folkenflik's research -- that even if you assume that "Special Report" host Bret Baier is neutral and every reporter from a "non-ideological news outlet" is a liberal, most "Special Report" panels are unbalanced because the other two participants are conservatives. Even Graham, it seems, is not so foolhardy to even try to counter that.

Instead, Graham responds with a rather desperate misdirection claim in another April 9 NewsBusters post: claiming that the weekly political panel on NPR's "All Things Considered" is not truly balanced because liberal E.J. Dionne is up against David Brooks, who he claims is a "surrogate conservative."

Graham writes that "To use NPR's lingo, it's one clear-cut liberal and one 'non-ideological' journalist." Wrong -- Brooks is an opinion columnist, not a reporter. He's also a conservative Graham and the other Heathers at the MRC have repeatedly attacked for his purported lack of total commitment to hard-core conservatism. Indeed, Graham has sneered at Brooks in the past for being a guy who will "blithely sit around with liberals at pricey restaurants like Le Cirque and complain that those hicks from Texas and Alaska aren’t reading enough Niebuhr."

Meanwhile, this is what passes for "media research" at the MRC: an April 7 NewsBusters post by MRC employee Matthew Balan complaining that an NPR report was "slanted towards President Obama and two of his Democratic allies in Congress on Thursday's Morning Edition on the continuing battle over the federal budget, playing seven sound bites from them versus only three from Republican House Speaker John Boehner."

But as Media Matters pointed out, four of those quotes were from President Obama, while two more were from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Democrats control the White House and the Senate, while the Republicans control the House. Offering a mostly balanced representation of the branches of government involved is not bias, even if it means that more Democrats will be quoted.

So you can see why Graham was upset with Folkenflik's work -- he showed what his own MRC employees ought to be doing. 

(Which reminds us -- when is the MRC going to do what NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard requested that somebody do, add up the number of right-wing versus left-leaning guest in a week's worth of NPR programming? Or are Graham and the MRC to do such a simple thing out of fear that it would undercut its NPR talking points?)

Posted by Terry K. at 7:53 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink