MRC's Bozell and Graham Mock Idea of Gay Etiquette Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham start their April 30 column by writing:
The times they are a-changing in ways even Bob Dylan didn't foresee.
I have an early childhood memory riding my bike and coming across a discarded booklet on proper social etiquette. It had the perfunctory rules. Gentlemen always open doors for ladies. Stand when a lady comes in the room. And so on. But the one I remember vividly is this: A lady always extends her hand first in greeting. Why? Fifty years ago I could understand the concept, but even then, I thought it was a bit much. Today that rule's been abandoned.
Whose "early childhood memory" is this? Perhaps it's Graham's since he's been shown to be the actual writer and Bozell just the figurehead. But this is the kind of problem you have when you have a singular memory described in a column written by two people.
Conflicts in literary perspective aside, Bozell and Graham's goal is to further the MRC's anti-gay agenda by mocking the idea of the Washington Post hiring a columnist to address issues of gay etiquette:
"Steven Petrow will be joining our advice ranks," declares the Post, "with a special emphasis on LGBT and straight etiquette issues." Petrow, states his bio, is "the go-to source for modern manners ... known as Mr. Manners." Why was he chosen for the job? He will tell you it's largely because he's the former president of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.
His column is called "Civilities" (get it, homophobes?), and Mr. Manners will tackle many thorny etiquette issues as well. In his introductory piece, he outlines some of the issues he's dealt with in the past.
He muses about the gay cop who wrote in to say he was subjected to homophobic jokes, feeling it was his colleagues' way of convincing him to resign. Or the gay widower upset that his in-laws omitted him from his husband's obituary. Or the most vexing question of them all: How to introduce a married same-sex couple? (Answer: They "should be referred to as you would any legal spouse, and that's 'husband' and 'wife.'")
Questions, questions. "Do parents pay for their gay son or lesbian daughter's wedding?" "Is a dad expected to walk his son down the aisle?" "What pronoun (and restroom) is appropriate for a person who is transgender?" "How do you respond to 'assimilated' gays who find 'flamboyant' ones embarrassing?"
How do you respond to an entire industry you find embarrassing?
Well, you've just seen you Bozell and Graham respond to something it finds embarrassing -- with sneering and derision for their fellow Americans.
NewsBusters' Blumer Unhappy That White House Was Allowed To Respond To An Attack Topic: NewsBusters
One of the standard Media Research Center liberal-media tropes is claiming that the media covers only one side of an issue. For some MRC employees, covering one side of a story is OK as long as it's the side of the story they want covered.
Among those MRC employees is Tom Blumer. He starts going wrong in an April 30 NewsBusters post by insisting that Sharyl Attkisson is a "credible" and "authoritative" source on the Benghazi so-called scandal. Indeed, the big Attkisson "scoop" that Blumer regurgitates -- that a newly released memo proves "reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened" -- is pretty meaningless. As Media Matters and David Weigel note, the memo merely shows that the White House agreed with the CIA's early assessment that an inflammatory video touched off the Benghazi attack, is consistent with other intelligence briefings at the time, and that the memo was about the anti-American protests occurring in the region at the time, not just Benghazi.
Blumer then write: "Naturally, Poltico didn't run a story on this until this morning so it could present the White House's defense. It's here, if you can stand it." Apparently, it's a bad thing for a reporter to give Democratic White House to be given an opportunity to respond to something in the news.
We suspect Blumer would be praising Politico if the White House it delayed its article for was headed by a Republican.
WND Perpetuates Lie That Donald Sterling Is A Democrat Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily was quick to hop on the guilt-by-association bandwagon by trying to tie racist basketball team owner Donald Sterling to Democrats through a few long-ago donations. They're still at it.
Appearing on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' show, WND editor Joseph Farah said that Sterling is a a “lifelong Democrat” and a “big time Democrat.” Meanwhile, an April 29 WND article delcared that Sterling "has a lifetime record of donating only to Democrats, such as former California Gov. Gray David [sic] and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, a former NBA star."
Neither Farah nor his website mention, however, that Sterling is a registered Republican, which would seem to discredit this particular line of attack. But if WND told the truth, it wouldn't have anything to write about, would it?
AIM Praises Right-Wing Media Who Promote Its Agenda Topic: Accuracy in Media
Roger Aronoff writes in an April 28 Accuracy in Media column:
On April 22, the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) released a report on the findings of its months-long search for the truth behind the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. It has made its report public on its website.
New revelations in the case of Benghazi, Libya have made their rounds in the conservative media, but the mainstream media have failed to pay attention to this new information. The New York Times and Washington Post were invited to our media roundtable press briefing, but they declined to send reporters. CNN sent a camera and a producer, but failed to cover our revelations. You can now watch the press conference online. Part one is opening comments by the panelists; part two is Q&A.
But Townhall, Diana West, World Magazine, the Daily Mail, PJ Media, Front Page Magazine, Newsmax, WND, Renew America, LiveTradingNews, the Drudge Report, and, yes, even Russia Today are asking questions about Benghazi that the mainstream media apparently find less compelling.
Those outlets have one thing in common: With the exception of Russia Today, all of the outlets Aronoff praised for its coverage of AIM's little kangaroo court are all right-leaning and could be counted on to regurgitate AIM's right-wing, anti-Obama agenda.
Aronoff acknowledges this in the final paragraph of his article, declaring that "We are pleased to see the excellent coverage this story has gotten, albeit mainly in the conservative media. A World Magazine piece, a Town Hall article, and Diana West column, among several others, serve as excellent resources for our story."
Because those "excellent resources" could be counted on to provide uncritical coverage, Aronoff knows they won't bring up uncomfortable things, like the fact that the Citizens Commission on Benghazi is stacked with Obama-haters, birthers and conspiracy theorists who can't possibly be expected to bring any sense of fairness or objectivity to the issue.
WND Omits Facts And Context On Kerry's 'Apartheid' Remark Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore writes in an April 28 WorldNetDaily article:
When President Jimmy Carter, 24 years after leaving office, accused Israel of carrying out “apartheid” policies in the West Bank even worse than the pre-1994 South African government, he was fiercely criticized by figures from both left and right.
Indeed, U.S. officials, including President Obama, have avoided making the provocative comparison to the institutional racism of the old South African regime until Secretary of State John Kerry warned Friday that Israel could become an “apartheid state” if it fails to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
While Kerry didn’t say Israel currently employs apartheid policies, his utterance of the term evokes the position of Palestinian leaders and allies in academia and the United Nations who have used it to brand Israel as a racist government whose policies are motivated not by self-defense against an existential threat, but by bigotry and even genocidal aims.
Moore's likening of Kerry's statement (which he has since walked back) to the "position of Palestinian leaders and allies" omits important facts about such a comparison.
First, senior Israeli officials over the years -- including former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak and Defense Minister Tzipi Livni -- have made similar warnings about the future of the country.
Second, Israel had a longtime strategic alliance with the apartheid regime in South Africa, to the point where Israel provided expertise and technology that helped develop South Africa's nuclear weapons.
Finally, Moore has a co-worker who apparently supports an apartheid state in Israel: Aaron Klein, who has admitted that "I personally do agree with some of the sentiments of Rabbi Meir Kahane." One of the "sentiments" of Kahane, expressed through his Kach movement in Israel (and carried on through its successor, Kahane Chai), is the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel.
Politico's David Nather must have thought he was so clever. Here's how he opened a recent column: "It can happen to anyone, right? You rally behind a guy ... and suddenly he’s spewing racist bile and boy, does it splash on your face." Yes, I left out a few words, and I'll get to that. But before providing them, the quote just rendered would apply to how those at Los Angeles branch of the NAACP must feel about their now-withdrawn but not forgotten plan to confer a lifetime achievement award on Los Angeles Clippers' owner Donald Sterling, who has been caught on tape allegedly telling a woman that she shouldn't "associate with black people" or have blacks accompany her to Clippers games.
Let's revise Nather's blather a bit for another comic circumstance: "It can happen to anyone, right? You rally behind a guy because he comes over to your side on climate change, and suddenly he’s arrested in 'a 20-count federal indictment that includes charges of mail fraud, wire fraud and tax fraud.' Boy, does it splash on your face." Now I'm talking about the fools at Organizing For Action, who celebrated the "breakthrough" of having GOP Congressman Michael Grimm come over to their side mere days before his indictment, which occurred today.
These two far more damning examples demonstrate what a fool Nather was Thursday evening as he tried to tar Republicans who were expressing single-issue sympathy for Cliven Bundy in his ongoing battle with Uncle Sam's Bureau of Land Management with Bundy's later race-based remarks[.]
With its award, the LA NAACP was embracing Donald Sterling in his entirety. OFA cast Congressman Grimm as a supposedly shining example of political courage. With rare exceptions, those who have opined on the Cliven Bundy situation have expressed no such unvarnished support, but have limited their advocacy to objecting to the Bureau of Land Management's heavy-handed tactics and to the idea that Bundy and his family might deserve to continue to conduct their business as they have.
In other words, the Sterling and Grimm situations are steeped in embarrassing hypocrisy. The Bundy situation isn't.
I hope that crow you're eating tastes good, David Nather. I hear that lathering it with barbecue sauce covers up a little of the bitterness.
Of course, as we noted, Blumer himself was engaging in some serious guilt-by-association just a day earlier when he was highlighting the Democratic donations of apparently racist Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling.
It can happen to anyone, right? You castigate a racist because he donated money to Democrats 20 years ago, and suddenly he turns out to be a registered Republican. Boy, does it splash on your face.
Better keep that bottle of BBQ sauce out for your own helping of crow, Mr. Blumer. We recommend the pride of Kansas City, Arthur Bryant's.
WND's Massie Calls Obama A 'Mac-Daddy Sissy' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie begins his April 28 WorldNetDaily column by dismissing the racist comments of Cliven Bundy:
The past two weeks have been a race-monger’s dream. Cliven Bundy responded to an interview question that has allowed the press to portray both him and those of us who support him as racist.
But the truth is, even if Cliven Bundy were the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, racism wouldn’t be the issue. The issue is a rogue federal government. The issue is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which was handed scathing reprimands by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Nevada Circuit Court in September 2012 and May 2013 in his finding for the Hage family, whom the BLM targeted as they did the Bundy family.
Amazingly, that's not the most offensive thing in his column. That comes in yet another example of his pathological hatred of President Obama:
Now come the alleged comments of Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, that were secretly recorded while he was having a dispute with his girlfriend. The recording then mysteriously found its way to TMZ for TMZ to present as an exclusive. During the dispute, Sterling opined to his girlfriend (who is black and Mexican) that he was upset by her public association with certain blacks – among whom was Magic Johnson. If we are to believe the tape has not been doctored, Sterling indicated he did not want his girlfriend to bring these blacks to basketball games.
And as quick as you can say “Mac-Daddy sissy,” Obama, with the blood of the Benghazi Four (Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty) on his hands; the IRS scandal; Fast and Furious (and the blood of Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata also on his hands); unemployment at unparalleled highs; America becoming a food-stamp nation; Japanese reports that Michelle plans to divorce him (supposedly over his countless affairs); and “If you like your insurance you can keep it,” he finds time to feign insult over Sterling’s comments.
Obama called Sterling’s alleged comments, “incredibly offensive racist statements.” He continued: “We constantly have to be on guard on racial attitudes that divide us rather than embracing our diversity as a strength. … The United States continues to wrestle with the legacy of race and slavery and segregation, that’s still there, the vestiges of discrimination. … We’ve made enormous strides, but you’re going to continue to see this percolate up every so often … and I think that we just have to be clear and steady in denouncing it, teaching our children differently, but also remaining hopeful that part of why statements like this stand out so much is because there has been this shift in how we view ourselves.”
Obama’s comments were morally opprobrious and boorish but obviously not out of character for him. Obama has done less to further the racial unity of America and more to exasperate and, indeed, to exacerbate racial and religious tensions in America and around the world than any American leader before him.
Massie has apparently decided to channel another pathological Obama-hater, James David Manning, who delights in slurring Obama as a "long-legged mack daddy."
Massie then indulges in another depraved lie of the kind he cannot stop telling about Obama:
A true leader would have taken the opportunity to tell the world that even if the alleged recording of Sterling were accurate, Sterling doesn’t represent America. He is one person, and in America, unlike the rest of the world, he is entitled to his opinions even if they are offensive.
As the mess of ellipses in Massie's earlier quote of Obama indicates, he edited out a lot of Obama's statement. In fact, Obama did pretty much say what Massie demanded him to:
I don’t think I have to interpret those statements for you; they kind of speak for themselves. When people — when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk. And that’s what happened here.
But the facts have never mattered to Massie when he has a heady froth of Obama-hate going, as further illustrated by his assertion that "Sterling has done more for blacks than Obama."
MRC Thinks Right-Wing Propaganda Filmmaker Is Just Like Spike Lee Topic: Media Research Center
As part of its suspiciously enthusiastic promotion of Phelim McAlleer's crowdfunding campaign to make a movie about "serial killer" Kermit Gosnell, the Media Research Center's Katie Yoder has cranked out yet another article about it, this time trying to manufacture a claim of bias:
Spike Lee and Phelim McAleer are both film-makers who’ve both achieved something unique: each has successfully raised $1.4 million to finance his movie through crowdfunding – a campaign seeking donations from the public. But Spike Lee is famous and established, with a net worth of $40 million. Phelim McAleer isn’t. So it’s a bit odd that the networks took note when Lee (a famous, if not household name) did it, but not when McAleer overcame greater odds to reach that number. Well, it would be odd, except that McAleer is trying to fund a movie about abortionist Kermit Gosnell – America’s “most prolific serial killer,” and the media’s most ignored story.
ABC, CBS and NBC gave Spike Lee’s psychological blood thriller on Kickstarter six mentions in 2013. The project earned a total of $1,418,910 with 6,421 funders. The nets adore the idea of raising money from the public for projects, and referenced crowdfunding (including mentions of Kickstarter and Indiegogo) 55 times in the past two years.
But the Gosnell movie failed to make their cut – or rather, meet their agenda.
Yoder seems not to have considered the possibility that Lee is a respected filmmaker while McAleer is a factually challenged right-wing propagandist whose filmmaking, to our knowledge, has demonstrated none of the artistry exhibited by Lee.
WND Columnist: Cliven Bundy Spoke the 'Truth' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Then there’s Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who was the target of government overkill, in more ways than one, to get him off his land.
In an interview with the New York Times, he was selectively quoted in a way that portrayed him as – guess – racist!
Because he recollected what government housing for blacks was years ago and what has happened to them since, and related that to slavery.
He said that under government largesse, blacks have become slaves to the system for food, clothing, housing, health care, education and even jobs.
Funny, I said that on my KSFO talk show years ago – just looking at the dependence of so many blacks on Uncle’s largesse is comparable to being a slave to the government. You do what you’re told, or you get nothing.
He spoke of the breakdown of black families, the number of single parent families, the high incidence of black abortions, the number of blacks in prison, unemployment and dropout levels.
All illustrate a breakdown of black culture because of government dependence.
No, it’s not “slavery,” but it really is, just with a different face.
The reaction to just this part of Mr. Bundy’s statement was almost unanimous: “He’s a hateful bigot.”
Former supporter Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called his remarks offensive and said he wholeheartedly disagreed.
Sean Hannity and other media conservatives also backed off their support on the land dispute.
Sad, isn’t it, when truth is considered “offensive”?
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., piled on, after having called Bundy and his supporters “domestic terrorists.” Reid said that Bundy’s comments “revealed himself to be a hateful bigot.”
Unfortunately, the next step is that Bundy’s complaints against the government because of the land issue now should have no relevance.
NewsBusters, WND Desperately Play Guilt-By-Association With Racist NBA Owner Topic: NewsBusters
It's almost as if the right-wing media is following the same set of talking points.
Both NewsBusters' Tom Blumer and WorldNetDaily's Joe Kovacs have basically written the same article highlighting the fact that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling -- currently in hot water for allegedly making racist statements -- once donated to Democrats.
Both have to concede, however, that Sterling's donations to Democratic candidates came more than 20 years ago. Not that it stops their desperate guilt-by-association, of course.
Blumer at least appears to be aware he's peddling a desperate line of partisan bull:
What kind of crazy, reactionary mindset would cause an owner who works in an industry dominated by black players to have such opinions and feelings? The evidence is admittedly thin and a bit dated, but to the extent it exists, that answer is, apparently, "one who supports and donates to liberal Democrats[.]"
As noted, this is not definitive evidence of Sterling's current political leanings. But if the Clippers' owner had a 20 year-old record of donating to Republican candidates, it would not only be included in mainstream media stories about the controversy; it would also be considered prima facie evidence of racism.
Kovacs presumably knows he's peddling partisan bull, but he's too much of a WND loyalist to admit it. He quickly mentions that "Sterling donated $6,000, with no activity since the early 1990s," then moved on.
But Kovacs' and Blumer's guilt by association is all for naught: Turns out Sterling is a registered Republican. Will they ever get around to noting this inconvenient fact?
WND Columnist Still Shilling for WND Books Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Jim Fletcher justloves to shill for the books WorldNetDaily publishes, though he regularly fails to disclose that those books are published by the same folks who publish his column. Fletcher is in shill mode again in a pair of WND articles touting Republican activist Richard Viguerie. The first offers this loving introduction:
Many qualities are needed for success in politics, and “success” isn’t always universally agreed upon.
Yet it is the savvy realist who often emerges as an indispensable guru – especially for the minority party in the U.S. Congress.
Richard Viguerie is such a go-to analyst. He’s been at it a long time, and the conservative icon – a pioneer in direct-mail – is a voice sought out by those who want to see the GOP adopt a winning strategy. It’s a role that Viguerie quietly relishes.
Another Fletcher article fawningly repeats Viguerie's statements at a Heritage Foundation speech two weeks earlier.
While Fletcher makes sure to plug Viguerie's book "Takeover" in both articles, he somehow forgets to mention that the book is published by WND.
Meanwhile, an April 27 article by Fletcher features a softball interview with former congressman James Rogan, noting that he is "the author of 'Rough Edges' and 'Catching our Flag.'" Guess who published bothbooks?
Andrea Billups uses an April 24 Newsmax article to provide an uncritical portrait of filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch and his latest project purportedly "capturing how U.S. authorities mistreat dissenters." Billups paints Lynch as a concerned citizen who "fears his country is in trouble and that is what motivates him to continue his investigative work."
There's no mention, however, of the extreme anti-immigrant views that drive much of Lynch's work. Media Matters notes:
Lynch's anti-immigrant films They Come to America I & II were, according to the Center for New Community, "so poorly made and offensive that not a single production company or film distributor in the U.S. or Canada would release it." The films were heavily promoted by the Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a hate group. Lynch has also repeatedly smeared immigrants as criminals, saying some immigrants are coming to America "to cut your throat."
During one Fox News interview, Lynch implied that non-English speaking participants in the rally were undocumented: "I asked them straight out--are you undocumented? They didn't even understand what I was saying, so there's your answer I guess." Lynch did acknowledge that he did not "get to ask all 10,000 of them" that question.
In another Fox News interview, Lynch ranted that if immigration reform passes, "it's the end of America as you know it and I know it."
But instead of telling the truth about Lynch, Billups peddles fluffy statements like "Lynch wants to continue to tackle hard stories like the immigration problem and Obamacare that he asserts have taxed the country."
WND Managing Editor Denies Basic Facts In Bundy Case Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian begins his April 24 column by writing, "Why is the most powerful man in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, setting up Cliven Bundy, an aging Nevada rancher who supposedly owes grazing fees, to be destroyed?
Wait, what? Did Kupelian just say that Bundy "supposedly owes grazing fees"?
That is a fact that is not in dispute. Bundy grazes his cattle on federal land; therefore, he owes the federal government grazing fees. Pretty much every other rancher who grazes cattle on federal land pays those extraordinarily low grazing fees; Bundy hasn't. In the Salt Lake Tribune, Chris Wangsgard sums up the legal history substantiating that Bundy owes grazine fees:
In November 1998, Bundy made this argument in the U.S. District Court for Nevada. The court decisively rejected this same argument, ruling, "...the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States." Bundy now chants these same rejected arguments on Fox News and right-wing blogs.
The court also rejected Bundy’s claim that Nevada law somehow trumps federal law, thus giving him free grazing rights. The court ordered Bundy to remove any non-permitted cattle from BLM land by the end of November 1989. Perhaps suspecting Bundy would ignore his order, the judge specified that he would face fines of $200 per day for each unpermitted cow he refused to remove.
Bundy doesn’t owe a million dollars for grass; he owes that for intentionally refusing to obey a federal judge’s order for more than 20 years. He has talked himself into believing that federal law, including a federal judge’s orders, doesn’t apply to him. He has foolishly encumbered whatever ranching inheritance he might once have been able to pass on to his children.
Bundy not only refused to obey the court’s 1998 order, he expanded his illegal grazing onto new allotments of BLM land. In 2013, the court gave Bundy 45 days to remove his cattle and expressly ordered that the United States is entitled to impound any cattle Bundy fails to remove.
Kupelian is supposed to be a journalist, yet he refuses to acknowledge basic facts about the subject of his writing.
Kupelian went on to dismiss as "bizarre" Reid's assertion that the militia thugs who rushed by Bundy's side were "domestic terrorists." But as Wangsgard points out, "Bundy and his supporters instigated an armed confrontation rather than complying with any of the court’s orders."
Kupelian then likens the situation at the Bundy Ranch to the 1993 standoff in Waco, Texas, which "result[ed] in the FBI burning the entire compound down to the ground, killing 76 people inside – including many women and children." In fact, an investigation concluded that the David Koresh's Branch Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. The investigation also found that some the victims inside the burned compound were shot to death, either by apparent suicide or homicide.
Kupelian also tried to whitewash "the deadly Ruby Ridge confrontation and siege in 1992," where, in his version of events, "Randy Weaver, accused of a minor firearms violation, was entrapped by the federal government, wrongfully targeted with an arrest warrant, ambushed by U.S. marshals, and saw his dog, and then his 14-year-old son, shot dead. Thanks to outrageous 'shoot-on-sight' rules of engagement given to government snipers, Weaver’s wife, Vicki, was also shot dead while standing in a doorway holding her baby."
Apparently, in the world Kupelian occupies, selling two illegal sawed-off shotguns is a "minor firearms violation," and shooting and killing a federal agent constitutes entrapment.
MRC Glosses Over RNC Spokesman's Falsehood Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center is a de facto arm of the Republican Party, so it's no surprise that it would gloss over a falsehood told by a Republican spokesman.
In an April 25 NewsBusters post, MRC news analyst Matt Hadro claimed that Republican National Committee Sean Spicer "flayed the media for its double standard over Republican and Democratic controversies, on CNN on Friday morning," claiming "that the media had largely ignored Democratic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, whose campaign recently tweeted – and then deleted – a link to an article likening black Republican voters to Jews working with Nazis."
But that's not what Spicer said. As the transcript Hadro supplies makes clear, Spicer said that "Pat Quinn, the Democratic governor of Illinois, the President's home state, made Jewish -- anti-Semitic Jewish and black comments."
There's a huge difference between Quinn's campaign tweeting a link to a columnist making an outrageous comparison -- which is what actually happened, as fellow NewsBuster Tom Blumer concurs -- and Quinn himself making "anti-Semitic Jewish and black comments," which clearly did not happen.
Rather than call Spicer out for his blatant falsehood, Hadro reinterprets it to what he thinks Spicer might have meant. That's what passes for media criticism at the MRC.
After the Times smeared as a rock-ribbed racist through the use of selective quotes the new hero of resistance to tyranny in America, there was a new development: The video recording of the actual remarks emerged.
To say the New York Times bent over backwards to make Bundy look like an unregenerate bigot would be an understatement. I suggest you view the video for yourself at the end of this column. Does he seem like a hater to you? Or does he actually sound like a man with compassion for blacks who have been systematically abused by a new plantation mentality imposed by government dependence?
Farah never explains how the supposed context of Bundy's words makes his references to "the negro" and his wondering if they were "better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy" any less offensive.
Farah also goes full Jack Cashill and declares that Harry Reid's use of two words has a larger meaning than he can actually prove:
Meanwhile, the guy who I suspect is the mastermind of the efforts by government to make an example of Cliven Bundy yesterday showed his own hand.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on all of his “progressive” friends to form a “united front” against Bundy.
For those of you untrained in the tactical and strategic arts of the totalitarian left, let me explain that terminology. “United front” has special meaning to only one group – communists. If you doubt what I, a former commie, have to say about it, just Google the term. See for yourself. What Harry Reid’s use of this term suggests is the left considers Cliven Bundy and all those rallying around his cause to be the most important target of the day. The “progressives” are apoplectic about this showdown in the desert. After all, they are supposed to be the champions of hardworking people. The government is supposed to be the friend and savior of working people. Yet, what Cliven Bundy has done, using “progressive” terminology, is to “heighten the contradictions” of socialist reality.
Yet, apparently, Bundy's references to "the negro" and "picking cotton" carry no deeper meaning to Farah -- none that he'll admit to in public, anyway.
WND pulls a similar stunt in an unbylined April 25 "news" article declaring, "Even as elements of a traditional media bound to newsprint continued to blast Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy on Friday for his remarks about blacks, he was getting more support, from blacks." The only blacksWND can name, however, is right-wing activist Niger Innes and a bodyguard for Bundy.
The unbylined article then asserts:
First came the chorus of critics who blasted Bundy as a bigot and racist, but given his status as a folk hero for standing up to the federal bureaucracy, in the shape of the Bureau of Land Management, there was immediate suspicion that there was some context to the quote.
Again, WND fails to explain how the supposed context makes Bundy's words less offensive.
In both of these articles, WND engages in content theft by making a copy of Bundy's remarks from the version posted at Media Matters (disclosure: my employer) and placing that video in a WND-controlled frame so that it can run ads before it. WND doesn't even bother to alter the Media Matters ID logos, which makes the content theft all the more blatant.
So, to recap:
WND demands context for Bundy, but it unashamedly steals the work of others.