CNS' Hollingsworth Has A Fit of Lazy Journalism Topic: CNSNews.com
Barbara Hollingsworth writes in a Dec. 18 CNSNews.com article:
Faith in Public Life, a group that has been funded by atheist billionaire George Soros, is behind an attack on The Catholic University of America (CUA) for accepting a $1 million donation from the Charles Koch Foundation, says Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
“The real story here is not the money being given to Catholic University by successful entrepreneurs; it is the source of the money being given to those who initiated the attack.
"To wit: Faith in Public Life spearheaded this highly politicized assault, and it is funded by left-wing zealot George Soros,” said Donohue, who praised CUA President John Garvey for “wisely standing his ground.”
“Soros is an atheist billionaire who is no friend of the Catholic community. In fact, he funds causes that the Catholic Church works hard to oppose: abortion, euthanasia, drug legalization, and many other radical initiatives,” Donohue said.
In 2008, Faith in Public Life received $200,000 from Soros’ Open Society Institute, according to the institute's IRS filing. (See 990.pdf)
Patrick Reilly, president of the The Cardinal Newman Society, agreed. "Faith in Public Life is a political organization that uses the Church as a vehicle to further its political aims." he told CNSNews.com. "For that organization to tell Catholic University what to do is like a parishioner who has not been to church in 10 years telling the pastor what to do.
"This is nothing but a political attack on the Koch Foundation," Reilly noted, adding that Faith in Public Life "is not looking to build up the Church."
What Hollingsworth didn't mention: Her boss, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell, is on the Catholic League's board of advisers as well as the Cardinal Newman Society board.
This is Journalism 101 -- disclosing your conflicts of interest. Why is Hollingsworth so incapable of doing this one simple thing?
Hollingsworth committed another act of journalistic laziness in her article (which she's apparently prone to): She made no apparent effort to permit Faith in Public Life respond to the attacks from Donohue and the Cardinal Newman Society.
WND Columnist to Blacks: Go Back to Africa! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie rants in his Dec. 16 WorldNetDaily column:
Many blacks felt they were owed special dispensation because of slavery and Jim Crow, and whites on both sides of the aisle agreed with them. Even though Democrats fought against it, Lyndon Johnson, owing to the indefatigable efforts of Republican Everett Dirksen and his fellow Senate Republicans, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it was President Nixon who ushered in race-based affirmative action. Blacks were given special entrance to universities and colleges based on skin color and quotas. This was later concealed under the cloak of diversity, but, in reality, it was still skin color and quotas. Employers were forced under penalty of law to have the correct color-coded balance in the workplace. And that extended to management positions. Standards were lowered to ensure those blacks who were not qualified would be employed and promoted.
Penitence has been made for slavery and Jim Crow. But, not unlike the retail customer who refuses to be satisfied, I believe there comes a time when we must give those who refuse to be satisfied the option of going elsewhere. Yes, I’m saying what you think I am saying. If, despite, America’s best efforts, blacks argue they are not treated fairly, that they are not given the same opportunity to succeed that whites are, if bad decisions that result in bad outcomes are the fault of white society, why stay here?
If blacks are so mistreated, if the realities of life that beset people of every description are more onerous because of white people here in America, why stay?
It’s a conundrum to me as to why a group of people – who supposedly are as mistreated and persecuted as blacks are in America – would want to stay here. Let them leave, and let them take liberals, socialists and the Obamas with them. Because it’s obvious that America cannot satisfy any of them.
Let them go to Liberia. Maybe they can do more with it than Marcus Garvey was able to. But by all means, let them leave here, so that We the People who love America and what she represents can live in harmony enjoying the traditions that made her the envy of the world.
But alas, they won’t do that. They’ll stay here and spread immiseration and complaint because, in truth, they understand there is no other nation that will work as hard as America has to accommodate their malcontent.
Massie is black, which means he can invoke black conservative privilege and get away with saying things that would be considered utterly racist if said by a white person, i.e., using the word "Negress" to describe a black woman.
If Massie finds America so intolerable populated by people with whom he disagrees -- and his Obama derangement shows he's at least as much of a malcontent as he accuses others of being -- why doesn't he move to Africa? He doesn't say.
CNS' Starr Unhappy That Gays Are Representing U.S. At Olympics Topic: CNSNews.com
Penny Starr, CNSNews.com's most homophobic reporter -- something of an achievement considering that some level of homophobia is apparently a requirement for working there -- has struck again.
On the heels of being annoyed that President Obama committed the offense of acknowledging that gays exist, Starr used a Dec. 18 article to grouse about Obama sending "at least two homosexuals" to represent the U.S. at the Winter Olympics:
President Barack Obama has named at least two homosexuals to the delegation that will represent the United States at the upcoming Olympic winter games in Russia.
The move is seen as a jab at the Russian law that bans propagandizing about homosexuality to children.
Retired tennis star Billie Jean King and Caitlin Cahow, an Olympic medalist in women’s ice hockey, are both open lesbians. King will attend the opening ceremony and Cahow will attend the closing ceremony.
Despite Starr's description of the law in question, observers have called it "vaguely defined and definitively antigay," so let's not pretend it's limited to "propaganda" aimed at "children."
The general huffy tone of Starr's article suggests she would like to see a similarly restrictive law in the U.S.
Larry Klayman Is Still An Incompetent Lawyer (But WND Doesn't Want You To Know That) Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi slobbers all over Larry Klayman in a Dec. 16 WorldNetDaily article celebrating a ruling Klayman somehow managed to win:
The attorney who won a high-profile federal court fight Monday with the National Security Agency over its invasive telephone-call spy program says he was put under surveillance – and more – by the agency when he filed the case.
Larry Klayman, a WND commentary contributor and founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, FreedomWatch, told WND that once his allegations that the federal government was violating the Constitution with its “watch-every-call” strategy hit the courts, he noticed problems with his email.
“People began receiving from me emails that I had never sent,” Klayman told WND, suggesting harassment in response to his work. “The government just wanted me to know they were watching me.”
What Corsi won't tell you: The judge in the case rejected Klayman's paranoid arguments.
As Dr. Conspiracy notes, Judge Richard Leon wrote in his ruling:
Likewise, I find that plaintiffs also have standing to challenge the NSA’s querying procedures, though not for the reasons they pressed at the preliminary injunction hearing.
I specifically asked Mr. Klayman whether plaintiffs had any "basis to believe that the NSA has done any queries" involving their phone numbers. … Klayman responded: "I think they are messing with me" … then went on to explain that he and his clients had received inexplicable text messages and emails not to mention a disk containing a spyware program. … Unfortunately for plaintiffs, none of these unusual occurrences or instances of being "messed with" have anything to do with the question of whether the NSA has ever queried or analyzed their telephony metadata, so they do not confer standing on plaintiffs.
In other words, Klayman won the injunction in spite of his lawyering, not because of it. Corsi won't tell you that, of course. Nor will he mention the numerous examples in which Klayman wated his clients' money by his incompetence -- like his representation of WND in suing Esquire magazine for defamation, in which Klayman introduced fraudulent evidence and wouldn't concede that WND editor Joseph Farah admitted that Esquire's blog post about Corsi's birther book was satirical before it became "inconvenient" for him to do so.
But Corsi wasn't done slobbering over Klayman. The next day he wrote:
NewsBusters Misses the Point About Obama Selfie Coverage Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center is so obsessed with President Obama, they don't understand when they're being criticized.
Randy Hall uses a Dec. 15 NewsBusters post to complain that the photographer who shot the Obama selfie photo at the Nelson Mandela memorial service was complaining that the photo dominated coverage. Hall then quotes a right-wing blogger who purports to read the photographer's mind to find out what was really saying:
I broke news -- I’m a successful wire service photog! But I broke news that made Mr. Obama look bad. I’ll never hear the end of this from my peers standing around the Monsieur Coffee machine in the AFP break room in their Paris HQ.
I am a failure of a photographer. I’ll never be stupid enough to break news again. Mon Dieu! Where did it all go wrong?
Except, of course, that the photographer, Roberto Schmidt, said no such thing. If Hall had actually read what he pasted in his post about what Schmidt said, it's clear that Schmidt is lamenting the selfie got coverage at the expense of anything having to do with the actual event -- the Mandela memorial. At no point does Schmidt express any mortification at making Obama "look bad."
Hall is simply putting words into Schmidt's mouth, and he apparently never read what he's writing.
NEW ARTICLE: Deep In the Heart of Whiteness, Post-Mandela Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily relies on cherry-picked statements -- and a few pro-apartheid dead-enders -- to trash Nelson Mandela after his death. Read more >>
MRC Still Obssessing Over Bashir, But Gave Limbaugh's Misogyny A Pass Topic: Media Research Center
Martin Bashir hasn't worked for MSNBC for a couple weeks now, but the Media Research Center still can't stop talking about him.
In a Dec. 16 MRC item, Kyle Drennen complains that NBC's "Today" highlighted Fox News host Megyn Kelly's oddball insistence that Santa Claus is white, while NBC "censored any mention of its own cable news host – MSNBC's Martin Bashir – calling for Sarah Palin to defecated on. Bashir later resigned as a result of the disgusting attack."
The MRC has done all it could to pile on Bashir -- and continues to do so even though, as Drennen admits, Bashir resigned some time ago and his attacks no longer prove anything.
By contrast, the MRC worked hard to distract attention from Rush Limbaugh's three-day tirade of misogyny against Sandra Fluke -- the strongest thing coming form Brent Bozell's mouth being "Let’s all agree Limbaugh crossed a line," ev en though Limbaugh's dozens of sleazy attacks were at least as disgusting as Bashir's single comment about Palin. Bozell's MRC employees not only condoned Limbaugh's sleaze, a few gleefully piled on.
You will never see Drennen call Limbaugh's attacks on Fluke "disgusting" -- Limbaugh must be protected at all costs, after all, and Fluke is a liberal woman who deserves to be denigrated for speaking about birth control in public.
WND's Ellis Washington Hides History to Bash Mandela Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington rants in a Dec. 13 WorldNetDaily column:
Here’s the truth about Mandela: On Jan. 31, 1985, the state president of South Africa, P.W. Botha, speaking in parliament, offered Mandela his freedom on one condition: that he “unconditionally reject violence as a political weapon.” This offer of freedom was repeatedly made to Mandela during his 27 years in prison at Robben Island where all of his co-conspirators rejected political violence and were eventually set free. Mandela, the so-called “man of peace,” repeatedly rejected all offers of freedom. Why? Because unlike the phony, global adulation of this man, Mandela and the ANC were brutal murderers of children and innocent civilians. Just look at who attended his funeral celebration earlier this week – a veritable rogue’s gallery of every tyrannical communist, Islamic and Marxist dictator on the planet, with the socialist Obama leading this pack of wolves. Indeed, birds of a feather do flock together.
What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? What freedom am I being offered when I may be arrested on a pass offence? What freedom am I being offered to live my life as a family with my dear wife who remains in banishment in Brandfort? What freedom am I being offered when I must ask for permission to live in an urban area? What freedom am I being offered when I need a stamp in my pass to seek work? What freedom am I being offered when my very South African citizenship is not respected?
Only free men can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts.
In other words, his freedom would be meaningless in a country that still practiced apartheid.
Washington went on to grouse:
According to the original 1963 and 1964 indictments of the Rivonia Trial: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, Mandela was not charged for being a political dissident but for four acts of TERRORISM. Specifically, he was originally incarcerated for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage, conspiracy to overthrow the government and treason. He and his fellow terrorist conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand grenades! Mandela lied when he confessed that the ANC only adopted violence as a means of protest “when other forms of resistance were no longer open to us.”
Again, context matters (though not to Washington). Here's the full text of what Mandela said, again from the 1985 response to Botha:
I am surprised at the conditions that the government wants to impose on me. I am not a violent man. My colleagues and I wrote in 1952 to Malan asking for a round table conference to find a solution to the problems of our country, but that was ignored. When Strijdom was in power, we made the same offer. Again it was ignored. When Verwoerd was in power we asked for a national convention for all the people in South Africa to decide on their future. This, too, was in vain.
It was only then, when all other forms of resistance were no longer open to us, that we turned to armed struggle.
Washington also ignores that the ANC did not embrace violent protest until after the Sharpesville massacre in 1960, when South African police killed 69 black anti-apartheid demonstrators and wounded dozens of others.
For Washington to claim that Mandela "lied" requires him to ignore inconvenient facts. We also suspect that Washington won't be as harsh with anyone who resorts to violence against his hated President Obama.
Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asserts that she is a "straight news anchor" and not an "opinion host" or "conservative operative" on the highly-rated network.
When Kelly made her inaugural appearance on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on Monday, Leno asked her: "People assume, if you're on Fox News, you have a certain bias. How do you deal with that?"
Kelly, whose show "The Kelly File" airs weeknights at 9, responded: "I'm a straight news anchor. I'm not one of the opinion hosts on Fox. But I always laugh, because I'll have a conservative pull me aside and say, 'I love your conservative principles,' and I'll say, 'You assume too much.'
"And then the liberals will pull me aside and say, 'I know you're one of us,' and I'll say, 'You assume too much.'
"But I always tell people if they think I'm this conservative operative, ask Karl Rove if that's true."
Kelly told Leno: "The way we do it on the Fox News Channel is the straight news anchors like myself give a hard time to both sides. And my legal background plays right into that," added Kelly, who practiced law for nine years before launching her news career.
"I don't care about pandering to the left or right, I care about protecting my audience," she said. "My boss Roger Ailes pays me a decent amount of money to go out there and ask questions, because he thinks that I know the questions my audience wants answers to.
Newsmax doesn't mention that Kelly has more conservative-leaning guests on herFox News show than that of unabashed conservative Sean Hannity, which does raise legitimate questions about Kelly's objectivity. Newsmax simply took Kelly at her word and didn't investigate whether she really does give an equally hard time to both ends of the political spectrum.
WND Again Disappears Far-Right Israeli From List Of People Banned From Britain Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Dec. 13 WorldNetDaily article reports on an invitation by the Oxford Union to right-wing radio host Michael Savage to take part in a debate over NSA leaker Edward Snowden, lamenting that "The popular, nationally syndicated San Francisco-based talk host was banned in 2009 from entering the United Kingdom by Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government along with Muslim extremists and leaders of racist groups for 'seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred.'"
That generic description obscures the fact that another WND favorite is on the banned list.
As we documented when the list first appeared in 2009, it includes Mike Guzovsky, aka Yekutiel Ben Yaacov, a one-time leader of the now-outlawed far-right Kahane Chai movement in Israel. Guzovsky/Ben Yaacov has been a trusted source for WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein -- so trusted that Klein endeavored to whitewash his extremism. Klein has quoted the man under both his Guzovsky (Guzofsky) and Ben Yaacov (Yekutel Ben Yaacov) names, failing to explain that they are the same person.
Klein ran to his source's defense at the time, whitewashing the Kahane movement as a group that merely "seeks to ensure that Israel retains biblically-rich territories, such as the West Bank and Jerusalem" -- without mentioning it also seeks to expel Arabs from Israel. Klein claimed without substantiation that "The only camps Guzofsky currently runs are to train dogs to protect Jewish communities in the West Bank"; but in a 2004 New Yorker article, Guzovsky bragged that "The Arabs are very scared of dogs. Muslims think they’re unclean."
As WND's articles about the ban have centered on Savage, WND hasdisappeared Guzovsky's name from the banned list, speaking of its non-Savage members only in vague terms.
So is WND conceding that Guzovsky is a racist by saying that "leaders of racist groups" were banned? Perhaps, but it apparently doesn't have the guts to identify Guzovsky by name as the leader of a racist group.
NewsBusters' Blumer Sneers At Responsible Reporting Topic: NewsBusters
The right-wing media had a fit when the Denver Post removed a statement about Colorado school shooter Karl Pierson, as claimed by another student, that he was a "socialist."
NewsBusters' Tom Blumer joined the outrage in a Dec. 16 post, followed by what he claimed was Post senior editor Lee Ann Colacioppo's "lame, condescending attempt at a defense." But Blumer reprinted only part of Colacioppo's response to criticism, the statement that "We decided not to have another student apply a label to the shooter -- a label the student likely didn't even understand."
But as Wonkette notes, Colacioppo offered a fuller response in a second tweet: "We instead chose to use more concrete descriptions such as 'he belittled Republicans.'"
In other words, Colacioppo was stating that she wanted to go beyond a label to the specifics of Pierson's beliefs -- what most people would call responsible journalism.
But Blumer doesn't need the full context to rip into the newspaper for not confirming his preconceived biases by slapping a unsubstantiated label supplied by a single student: "Colacioppo's defense indicates that her paper would rather insult students, their high school, and Post readers' intelligence rather than have the S-word (and, presumably, communism, as will be seen shortly) appear to be associated with violent and deadly acts. What's the point in subscribing to a publication such as this?"
And what's the point in reading a writer like Blumer who is so biased he can't be bothered to fully research what he's writing about?
'Universe-Shattering' Birther Evidence? Not Likely Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is apparently going all in on its birther revival.
After hinting about conspiracies in the death of a Hawaii official who was in charges of state records like President Obama's birth certificate, Bob Unruh turns stenographer in uncritically repeating Cold Case Posse chief Mike Zullo's latest claims in a Dec. 13 WND article:
The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate says the case has taken a startling turn, and sheriff’s investigators now are assisting the Cold Case volunteers.
“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”
Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.
But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate, could be public as early as March.
Given the history of Zullo's so-called investigation -- which relies on heavy input from birther extraordinaire Jerome Corsi and the complete dismissal of any evidence that contradicts their pet birther conspiracies -- the chances are better than good that Zullo's "universe-shattering" evidence really means "easily debunked."
After all, Zullo was caught making simple mistakes as applying the wrong race code to Obama's birth certificate -- not that WND will tell you about that, of course. Indeed, as before, Unruh fails to report that much of what Zullo and WND have claimed about the alleged fradulence of Obama's birth certificate has been discredited.
Further demonstrating what a lazy reporter he is, Unruh simply copies-and-pastes much of his previous article's boilerplate recitation of birther evidence, never bothering to tell readers it's been debunked.
Of course, as we all know, Unruh rejected real journalism the day he was hired by WND. His lazy stenography -- which would make a real journalist vomit in shame -- is exactly what Joseph Farah is paying him to do.
The man has no pride in telling the truth. You know, like the rest of WND.
After Dick Morris flamed out spectacularly with his utterly wrong predictions during the 2012 presidential election, Newsmax took a few stabs at image rehab for him. But we haven't heard much from Morris in recent months.
Apparently trying to get the rehab machine rolling again, Newsmax gave Morris space for a Dec. 15 column bashing John Boehner's criticism of conservatives, calling them "shortsighted and ungrateful in the extreme" and that they "cast real doubt on his ability to lead the House in the future."
Given Morris' track record, we can assume that this means Boehner will continue to be the House republican leader in the future.
WND's Apparent Quid Pro Quo With Steve Stockman Topic: WorldNetDaily
Garth Kant came off quite excited with his big scoop in a Dec. 9 WorldNetDaily article:
One of Washington’s most reliably conservative lawmakers is breaking the news that he will challenge a mainstay of the Republican establishment – all because the incumbent GOP senator “undermined Sen. Ted Cruz’s fight to stop Obamacare.”
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND exclusively that he will run against against Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in the state’s primary race. Cornyn is running for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2014.
The Texan had been keeping his decision to run close to the vest, until informing WND.
How did Kant score such a scoop? Perhaps it's a quid pro quo for an earlier collaboration.
Back in October, WND touted how Stockman distributed to other members of the House copies of Aaron Klein's slow-selling anti-Obama book "Impeachable Offenses," which WND donated to the cause. It benefited both sides -- Stockman got to promote his anti-Obama agenda for free, and WND had 435 fewer copies of Klein's book cluttering its warehouse.
Is it too hard to believe that Stockman would return the favor by giving WND a big scoop on his political plans? Not at all. Stockman surely knew that WND would give him all the fawning coverage he could imagine.
And Kant does just that, touting how "Stockman had already picked up some major support" just an hour after the announcement and promoted his "reputation as one of Capitol Hill’s most popular members on Twitter, using his pithy but pungent tweets to deliver scathing indictments of Democrats, often with a characteristically wry sense of humor."
Kant conveniently failed to tell his readers not only about WND cozy relationship with Stockman, but also about ethical problems in the form of Stockman's failure to fully disclose his business affiliations on his congressional financial disclosure forms, which include that he has apparently paid himself $350,000 from a company he formed.
That's the kind of selective reporting Stockman can count on from WND. And it's likely why Stockman graced Kant with his big poltiical scoop.
NewsBusters' Sheffield Defends Fox Host Over 'White Santa' Remark Topic: NewsBusters
We've documented how NewsBusters' Matthew Sheffield tries to pass himself off as a new-media guru despite offering little more than the same tired bashing of the "liberal media" peddled by his Media Research Center contemporaries.
Sheffield does this again, kicking off his defense of Fox News' Megyn Kelly for insisting that Santa Claus and Jesus were were white by engaging in more lame media-bashing:
Liberals often love to say that conservatives cannot take a joke but the truth is that both left and right sometimes are lacking in the humor department. That’s especially true of the cottage industry that’s sprung up devoted to finding any tiny little thing to bash Fox News, one of the handful of national media outlets that don’t lean left.
The very existence of Fox News appears to be psychologically damaging to some people, which is why the left-leaning websites that cater to them love jumping on any possible thing as a way of providing emotional validation. The Fox haters are up in arms today about a cheeky discussion that took place on last night’s “Kelly File” program in which a mock debate was held about the moral propriety of portraying Santa Claus as a white man, a proposition raised by an essay pubished Dec.10 at Slate.
Sheffield goes on to dismissed the Slate as, "like so many Slate articles, nothing more than clickbait" and Kelly comment merely "a funny quip very much in line with many a parent’s reassurances to doubting children on the very serious question of the Christmastime epistemology."
Sheffield parenthetically added: "[Slate writer Aisha] Harris’s second article is misleadingly headlined as 'What Fox News doesn’t understand about Santa Claus' even though her piece consists solely of a response to a single segment on a program on FNC which is editorially autonomous."
First, attributing one host's opinions or the alleged slant of a single segment to an entire network is something NewsBusters frequently does. Take these recent headlines, for instance:
Those all refer to a single segment, not the views of the entire network.
Second, Sheffield's insistence that Kelly's show is "editorially autonomous" differs not only with how NewsBusters and the MRC treat the"liberal media" outlets they target (as demonstrated above), it also diverges from reality. Despite Kelly's claim to be a "straight-news anchor," the guest list on her Fox News is more conservative than that of fellow Fox host and unabashed conservative Sean Hannnity.
When Kelly doubled down on her remarks, Sheffield was there to cheer her on and that Kelly "had a message" for her "haters" to "Lighten up and learn to realize what satire is."
Yes, the organization that finds no humor in Stephen Colbert's satire and treats other satirical content as grim reality wants liberals to "realize what satire is."
This is what the right wing has to offer as a new-media guru, folks.