MRC, Which Hammered Brian Williams, Brushes Aside O'Reilly's Falsehoods Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went ballistic on Brian Williams' exaggerations -- not because it cares about journalistic integrity so much, but because it saw an opportunity to futher the personal destruction of a despised target.
But now that questions have been raised about beloved conservative-leaning personality Bill O'Reilly's exaggerations about being in a war zone during the Falklands conflict, what do we hear from the MRC now?
The story has been out for a good three days now, and the the only thing to appear on any MRC outlet about O'Reilly is a Feb. 20 NewsBusters post by Matthew Balan promoting former CNN newsman Frank Sesno's claim that O'Reilly's exaggerations aren't as severe as Williams'.
Well, right-wing liars have to stick together -- after all, MRC chief Brent Bozell spent 15 years lying that he wrote his syndicated column.
WND Is Sad New Church Pastor Doesn't Hate Gays Enough Topic: WorldNetDaily
John Aman is very concerned in a Feb. 15 WorldNetDaily article:
When D. James Kennedy was preaching at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church – the fastest growing Presbyterian church in the nation for much of his tenure – his sermons and comments to media sometimes sparked fireworks.
One time he said: “We hear today that this is a pluralistic nation and that it is not a Christian nation. But Christianity itself, general Christianity, was conceived as the support of all our government.”
Kennedy, who died in 2007 after 47 years of ministry at the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, church, preached that Jesus is the only way to God, urged Christians to discern between good and evil, pointed out the failings of the theory of evolution, affirmed the resurrection of Jesus and believed the church should be a social force in society, defending traditional marriage and opposing abortion. He named one of his efforts “Reclaiming America for Christ.”
When it comes to faith in the public square, Coral Ridge is now moving in a new direction.
Pastor and popular evangelical author Tullian Tchividjian is in the pulpit and has made it, for the most part, a no-comment zone when it comes to matters such as the sanctity of human life and the sin of Sodom.
In short, Aman is unhappy that Tchividjian doesn't take the bully-pulpit approach of his predecessor and, more importantly, doesn't hate gays like Kennedy did:
Paul, the author of Romans, comes down hard in his first chapter against “men committing shameless acts with men,” but Tchividjian doesn’t address Paul’s harsh indictment.
Instead, he asserts Paul’s larger point in his catalog of sins – ranging from ingratitude to gossip, with two verses devoted to homosexual conduct – was to reveal the self-righteousness of his readers and to show that “inside the church people are just as guilty as outside the church people.”
“Religious people are just as guilty as non-religious people,” he said.
It's not until the bio line at the end of his lengthy 71-paragraph article that it's revealed why Aman is so concerned about this: He "served for two decades as a writer and communications director at Coral Ridge Ministries, the media ministry of D. James Kennedy."
In other words, it appears Aman has an axe to grind against his former employer for not continuing to act like his former boss.
While Aman does actually interview Tchividjian to obtain his views -- WND usually doesn't bother with such trivialities as allowing its target to rebut its attacks -- he also called in a reinforcement to back up his attack: So-called "historian" David Barton. Needless to say, Aman doesn't mention how Barton is utterly discredited as a historian, to the point that other Christian scholars have called him out.
Aman's buried disclosure, coupled with reliance on a discredited activist, offers more proof why nobody believes WND.
MRC Promotes Discredited Study Smearing Same-Sex Parents Topic: Media Research Center
Kristine Marsh is very excited to use a Feb. 12 Media Research Center item to promote a study that conforms with the anti-gay agenda of her and her employer (boldface is hers):
Now a new larger-scale and more scientific study in the U.S. has been published with contrary results, and all we get from the media is embarrassed silence.
The study titled "Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition," was conducted by sociologist and priest Donald Sullins of the Catholic University of America and published in “The British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioral Science” this month.
Sullins set out to discover whether the Australian study’s findings could be replicated using more reliable methodology. So he took a larger representative sample from the general population: 207,007 children, including 512 with same-sex parents, from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey.
The results of the study were not good for children of same-sex parents:
Eight of 12 psychometric measures used in the study showed that children with same-sex parents experienced more distress than children of opposite-sex parents. The results were "clear, statistically significant," and "of substantial magnitude," after controlling for age, sex, race, education and income. For four of the measures of emotional and behavioral problems, children raised by same-sex parents were at least twice as likely to experience difficulties compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents.
While Marsh was quick to attack as "flawed" an earlier study showing that children of gay parents, in her words, "were healthier and happier than children of hetero parents" (parroting the anti-gay Family Research Center) she exhibited no interest in hesitating to promote Sullins' study before others whose political agenda is less invested in its results could take a look at it.
And it appears to be even more flawed than Marsh claims the earlier study is. Steve Williams at Care2 outlines the numerous problems with the study, starting with the fact that Sullins has conducted research for the FRC's Marriage and Religion Research Institute and, thus, his objectivity on the issue is in question.
Williams points out that the "207,007 children" Marsh touts as being studied by Sullins as lacking significant research controls:
If we are studying same-sex parents and comparing them to opposite-sex parents, it logically follows that, given marriage offers a raft of benefits that support child-rearing, we should control for whether the same-sex parents were married like (presumably) most of the heterosexuals in this study were, or at least inquire as to the marriage status of all involved. This is not controlled for in the study.
Secondly, we would also take into account one key fact: if the same-sex attracted parents had a child as the result of a previous heterosexual relationship, this obviously will have a bearing on the child’s emotional well being because they will most probably have had to endure a break-up and divorce. The study does not adequately account for this fact either.
Third, the study should also have controlled for whether the same-sex parents were in stable longterm relationships that specifically included the cohabiting partners each taking on a parenting role. By the study’s own admission, same-sex parents were classed only as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” Again, there appears to be no adjustment for this meaningful variable.
Williams also notes that Sullins' framework is designed to produce unfavorable results for same-sex parents, he makes assertions that his own study doesn't support, and that the study's results appear to have been rushed with an eye toward influencing court cases on same-sex marriage.
Don't expect Marsh to go back and update her article with Sullins' flaws -- after all, only his initial conclusions matter. Such further research at the MRC is only for studies that don't advance the MRC's agenda.
Will WND Correct Or Retract Its False Anti-Gay Story? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh amped up the incident as much as he could in a Feb. 6 WorldNetDaily article, under a headline pronouncing it a "shock claim":
A legal team already challenging a Lafayette, California, high school over its use of Planned Parenthood personnel – including a self-described “pleasure activist” and another who led demonstrations at a “sex toy porn shop” – to teach public school sex-education classes now is accusing school officials of allowing a “Queer Straight Alliance” to bully students.
The Pacific Justice Institute dispatched a letter to officials at Acalanes High School in Lafayette asking for documents that would show what happened.
Pacific Justice said “students were singled out and ostracized for their beliefs.”
This being the lazy ideologue Unruh, the sole source of his information is a press release from the anti-gay PJI. Unusual for him, Unruh claims he contacted the school for a response but that it "declined to respond"; he provides no evidence he actually did so or who at the school he allegedly tried to contact.
Considering the people and groups involved, it should come as no surprise that the story has turned out to be bogus. Media Matters contacted the school district superintendent, and he pointed out the way in which right-wing reporting on the alleged incident "does not reflect what actually took place":
Did not happen [quoted directly from PJI's press release]: ridiculed and humiliated / intimidation and interrogation / also had students line up. The peer led classroom activity was a carried out in a respectful environment and under the supervision of the classroom teacher. The activity focused on tolerance and acceptance, with an emphasis on anti-queer harassment and homophobia. It was intended to help students better understand the LGBTQ student experience.
The program is in its 15th year at Acalanes High School and his been a model program and replicated throughout the region.
The onus is now on Unruh and WND: Will Unruh correct or retract his false article? Will he report the school superintendent's statement debunking PJI's false, overheated take? Will he tell WND readers that PJI has a history of fabricating incidents to promote its anti-gay agenda? Or will WND simply let Unruh's false story stand as is, furthering its reputation for publishing false articles and refusing to correct them?
Given WND's history on such things, we're betting on the latter.
A new poll commissioned by the Media Research Center reveals that the tales Brian Williams told – which led to his eventual suspension without pay – have severely undermined his credibility with the American people. In a survey of 1,007 respondents: -
- 66.1 percent said Brian Williams should have been fired after he was caught in numerous lies. Williams famously lied about being in a helicopter that was shot down over Iraq and seeing a dead body float by his New Orleans hotel during Hurricane Katrina.
-- An overwhelming 71.6 percent of respondents said that despite the anchorman's apology and suspension, he should still resign.
-- In the same poll, 61.6 percent said they are less likely to trust NBC News if Brian Williams is allowed to return as anchor of NBC Nightly News.
But the post omitted a couple of important things: the full results of the poll -- which most pollsters provide -- and the specific wording of the questions (which would be stated in the full poll results). That raises questions about exactly how fair the poll was.
One bit of information was noted that points us toward the answer: the poll was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates. NewsBusters doesn't disclose it, but McLaughlin & Associates primarily works for Republican and conservative causesand candidates, which tells us that McLaughlin likely crafted the poll's questions to get the result the MRC wanted.
The article on the poll by Barbara Hollingsworth at CNSNews.com also failed to provide the full poll results or disclose that the MRC's pollster is a conservative operation, but she did include the wording of questions:
“NBC suspended ‘Nightly News’ anchor Brian Williams for six months after he was caught in numerous lies, including fabricating a story about being shot down in a helicopter over Iraq and seeing a dead body float by his hotel in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. In your opinion, should he have been fired?” pollsters asked.
“[If] Brian Williams is allowed to return as NBC’s anchor, reporting the nightly news after being caught in numerous lies, are you more or less likely to trust NBC News?” respondents were asked.
The MRC and McLaughlin are overstating the facts -- deliberately so, one must assume. It hasn't been definitively proven that Williams "lied" about what he saw in New Orleans; others in New Orleans have expressed doubt that Williams could have seen what he claim he did.
And even Williams' story of "being shot down in a helicopter over Iraq" is not the "fabrication" the MRC wants you to believe it is. The pilot of Williams' helicopter admits that it was struck by small-arms fire during the incident in question (but not the rocket-propelled grenade that actually struck another copter in the convoy in which Williams was embedded).
The fact that the questions emphasize the "numerous lies" Williams allegedly told demonstrates the slanted nature of the poll. The MRC must be pleased that it got the results it paid for.
Of course, the MRC presentation of its slanted poll would not be complete without MRC chief Brent Bozell ranting against Williams:
“This poll confirms that the American people no longer trust Brian Williams to report the news. When the American people believe by such wide margins that your lead anchor is a liar, you have no other option but to fire him if he will not do the honorable thing and resign. Any effort by NBC News to rehabilitate its tarnished brand can only begin under new leadership for its flagship nightly news program. This is no longer about Brian Williams’ reputation. This is about NBC News having any chance of being a credible source of news.”
We can probably assume that the poll never asked a question about whether a syndicated columnist who passed off the work of others as his own -- as Bozell did for 15 years -- should also be fired. But since the MRC has refused to make the full results of the poll public, we may never know.
It's amazing how desperate WorldNetDaily is to be taken seriously as a news organization, despite years ruining that credibility through its obsessive hatred of President Obama and the lies and unfounded rumors it presented as fact.
That Obama-hate has popped up again in a hail-Mary attempt to stop the nomination of Loretta Lynch as attorney general. WND is now trying to bring up her alleged role in brokering a deal in which banking giant HSBC paid a $1.9 billion fine to settle charges of money-laundering for drug cartels.
This being WND, no actual evidence is offered that Lynch did anything wrong. Jerome Corsi's Feb. 6 article on the subject states merely that there may be documents that "could implicate Lynch in a massive cover-up of Obama administration involvement in international money-laundering of Mexican cartel drug money."
A Feb. 12 article by Corsi also identifies no actual wrongdoing; he suggests without evidence that Lynch helped HSBC "escape criminal prosecution" in the case -- as if a $1.9 billion fine is escaping criminal prosecution. Corsi also cites Rolling Stone's work on the case; just a few weeks earlier it was attacking Rolling Stone for its now-discredited story about a rape at the University of Virginia. All is forgiven when you parrot WND's agenda, apparently.
This being WND, this story has also led to WND straining an arm trying to pat itself on the back for breaking the story on HSBC's money-laundering. In a Feb. 10 article, Drew Zahn proclained that "The rest of the media are finally catching up to what WND has been reporting for years." And WND editor Joseph Farah blustered in his Feb. 19 column:
Question: Which news agency and which reporter uncovered the massive money-laundering operation for drug dealers and terrorists at mega-bank HSBC, which has now tied to the confirmation hearings for Loretta Lynch, Obama’s nominee to succeed Eric Holder as attorney general, who was in charge of the investigation that resulted in no criminal charges, no firings of officials and no meetings with the whistleblower who was fired for his efforts?
Answer: That’s right, it wasn’t Brian Williams. It wasn’t any of the world’s renowned financial reporters. It wasn’t any of the big, establishment news agencies.
It was, once again, Corsi and WND, who scooped the world with a series of stories in 2012 that had significant consequences for both the reporter and news agency. Corsi, who moonlighted as a financial adviser for a New York bank, was let go as a direct result of his investigation. And HSBC targeted WND by using its power and influence with upstream Internet providers to launch a denial of service attack that lasted several hours before the news agency was able to intercede and restore service.
This being WND, Farah is lying, as he did in July 2012 when he also asserted that WND was "the news agency that actually broke the news about HSBC’s money-laundering schemes."
As we've documented, other news organizations had reported on the HSBC scandal a full week before WND's first article -- which acknowledged earlier reporting on HSBC. WND's contribution was detailing the claims of ex-HSBC employee John Cruz, who provided WND with "1,000 pages of evidence" of alleged HSBC wrongdoing. But the Senate subcommittee that investigated HSBC did not interview Cruz, which raises questions about the value of Cruz's information.
Farah's claim that Corsi lost his job at an bank where he "moonlighted" raises another question he has yet to answer: Why is Farah apparently paying his supposedly valuable "senior staff writer" so little money that he has to have a second job? And it's no like Corsi's moonlighting employer, Gilford Securities, was all that proud to claim him; as we've noted, much of Corsi's work during the time he also worked there carried a disclaimer that "The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author are his alone and do not necessarily reflect Gilford Securities Incorporated's views, opinions, positions or strategies."
Farah then goes on to huff: "Good journalism should be rewarded – just as bad journalism should be punished." But Corsi is a veritable font of bad journalism -- from peddling bogus documents to reporting out-and-out lies to hiding the false nature of his birther conspiracy theories.
And given Farah's effusive praise, it's clear that Corsi's bad journalism has never been punished at WND -- it's celebrated. Which puts the lie to Farah's claim that WND is "fearless in our pursuit of truth."
Even if WND is somewhat correct in its HSBC story, it has crapped the bed so many times before that there's no reason to believe anything it says. Farah apparently still hasn't learned that basic lesson in journalism.
NewsBusters Whines: Evolution Question To Walker Was Off-Topic! Topic: NewsBusters
Tom Blumer uses a Feb. 15 NewsBusters post to posit that Scott Walker was right to "punt" on a question about evolution he was asked because it should never have been asked in the first place because it was "brazenly off-topic":
In London, England earlier this week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker delivered a speech about global trade at the Chatham House think tank. Given that the group's mission is "to help build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world," and that it encourages "open debate and confidential discussion on the most significant developments in international affairs," it seemed a reasonable expectation that those present would ask questions relevant to those matters.
Instead, Scott Walker was asked several brazenly off-topic questions, including if he believed in evolution. He refused to answer them. In the case of evolution, he said, "I’m going to punt on that one ... That’s a question that a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another," while reminding the audience that "I'm here to talk about trade and not pontificate on other issues."
The smug establishment press apparently wants to believe that Walker's refusal has created a political crisis of epic proportions which they contend (translation: hope) may harm his presidential aspirations.
Blumer gets even more conspiratorial after that, speculating that an Associated Press reporter who covered the Walker incident is biased because he is "likely a member of the far-left, Occupy Movement-supporting News Media Guild" and that the AP itself is "likely inspired by leftist hacks who thought they had an issue they could flog." Needless to say, Blumer offers no evidence of this.
Blumer ultimately whines about "amateur-hour smear-driven journalism" -- as if that isn't what he contributes at NewsBusters, though without the "journalism" part.
NEW ARTICLE -- Needed At WorldNetDaily: A Vaccination Against Lies Topic: WorldNetDaily
When WND isn't falsely claiming the measles vaccine is worse than actually having the disease, it's falsely blaming illegal immigrants for the measles outbreak. Read more >>
Newsmax Censors de Borchgrave's Conservatism Topic: Newsmax
It's unsurprising that Newsmax would play up the death of Arnaud de Borchgrave -- after all, de Borchgrave was an original member of Newsmax's board of directors. But there's something about de Borchgrave Newsmax isn't eager to tell you.
David Patten writes in his lengthy Feb. 15 Newsmax obituary of de Borchgrave:
When de Borchgrave took over the newsroom of The Washington Times in 1985, Reagan called to offer his congratulations. At the Times, de Borchgrave's tireless work ethic was soon on full display. He knew his mammoth competitor The Post, his former employer at Newsweek, could outspend his newsroom many times over. To compensate, he labored tirelessly to single-handedly reverse the newspaper's fortunes, often sleeping overnight on the convertible sofa in his office.
In an effort to motivate the Times staff, shortly after taking the helm he recounted his experiences in the Royal Navy. "My skippers seldom left the bridge," he told them. "I see myself as your new captain on the bridge."
By 8 a.m., according to New York Magazine, he would clip his way through five newspapers, and a staff member would sift through a dozen other publications for him as well. The New York Magazine article on his arrival at the Times referred to him as "the last of the world-class reporters."
Notice what's missing in that passage. Patten doesn't mention that the Washington Times is a conservative operation funded by the cultish Unification Church.
Indeed, the word "conservative" doesn't appear anywhere in Patten's obituary, though he leaves enough clues as to de Borchgrave's ideology that it can be inferred.
In 1985, he became editor of the recently launched Washington Times. The conservative newspaper was backed by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, a religious group often described as a cult.
The newspaper had a loyal following inside President Ronald Reagan’s administration but at times made unusual editorial decisions. For instance, its editorial page lobbied Reagan to pardon Moon, who was convicted of tax evasion, according to the Post.
Patten's boss, Christopher Ruddy, took a similar tack to his employee. In an appearance on Steve Malzberg's Newsmax TV show, Ruddy eulogized de Borchgrave but at no point explained that he was a conservative.
President Barack Obama rose to make the point that Christians should be very careful up there on their high horses criticizing Islamic groups like ISIS for crucifying children, burying their captives alive for “not being Muslin enough,” beheading them and, most recently, drenching a Jordanian pilot in flammable liquid and burning him to death in a cage. I was just about to solidify feelings of moral superiority for our different ways. Obama stopped me just in time.
But here? But now? While that metal cage was still smoking from the Jordanian pilot’s incineration? Is this the president’s idea of proper timing for that particular history lesson?
Why did it give me the impression that this president is not quite mad-as-hell at ISIS?
There’s something highly biblical going on. The forces of evil have risen. Will the forces of good rise up to overwhelm them? For that, stay tuned.
While Mr. Brokaw is calling for Mr. Williams’ head, we should remember the discussion Brokaw and Charlie Rose had just a week or so before Barack Obama was elected in 2008. In that conversation, which can be seen on Youtube, Brokaw and Rose discussed what little they, the media, or anybody knew about this Barack Obama community organizer.
Had Tom Brokaw been completely honest during his discussion with Mr. Rose, he would have stated how the media was in the tank for Barack Obama, which is why they didn’t live up to Journalism 101 by performing due diligence on Mr. Obama. Brokaw failed, many believe intentionally, to do his journalism job and encourage other reporters to do their jobs. For that, no one should ever listen to what this semi-retired windbag has to say.
As circumstances in America deteriorate more rapidly (with the advancement of the Obama administration’s unimpeded agenda), I have noted an increasing instance of certain grave issues coming to light months after my having reported them (usually here on WND).
President Obama has, in so many words, explicitly expressed his desire for total control over you. As he sibilantly slurs his way through various attacks on Christianity, individual liberty, economic freedom, American exceptionalism and every other foundational tenet of this free nation’s founding documents and underlying philosophy, he is making clear not just that he hates you and your politics, hates you and your liberty, hates you and your family. He is establishing quite clearly through word and deed that he has absolutely no problem with the myriad ways in which your government (and every other entity, private and public) invades your privacy.
To Democrats, you are not an individual. To progressives, you are not a human being. To Obama, you are not a free citizen.
Here we are again this week complaining about the same administration that has transgressed the law and the rights of the American people. Barry blurted out the truth in his confusion this week, claiming that the media overstates the terror threat (Deuteronomy 28:36).
However, the American people are now coming to the realization that he hates Christians (Leviticus 26:17).
Yet, in America we see that the president of the United States rules by his will concerning the decisions that are made from the people’s White House and does so arbitrarily. It is not for any representative, regardless of branch or capacity in which they serve the people, to rule outside of their scope of authority. That is unlawful and, therefore, illegal, which makes it a criminal act.
When Obama continued missing shot after shot, it was because he believes he is God, and that eventually the planets would re-align themselves and his shots would all start swishing through the net without his having to make even the slightest adjustment.
It’s time for the media to start calling Obama out for what he is. The president simply is not detached from reality or incompetent, as the media apologetically often depict his numerous foreign-policy failures and scandals. Even Fox News, which I congratulate and appreciate for its hard-hitting fair and balanced reporting generally, skirts this central issue: Obama’s biases and prejudices and how they destructively affect his governance. Even if the media will not brand him as the anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic bigot he is, it is at least high time that reporters, columnist, and television and radio commentators say it straight up: Obama sees nearly everything and acts from the lens of his Muslim, African heritage, frequently to the detriment of the rest of us.
Last year I was criticized by the left-wing media for giving a speech satirically challenging the president to get up off his knees, to put the Quran down and to come out with his hands up. Given his prejudices and his myriad scandals, along with his refusal to call Islamic terrorism what it is – but instead casting blame on Jews and Israelis, Christians, whites and, by implication, Jesus himself – my words now ring truer than ever.
In some ways, I actually have a degree of sympathy for Barack Obama, or whoever the man in the White House actually is. While you are gathering up the stones, I will explain those sympathies.
The man is in so far over his head he has given up. All that matters to him now is his eventual escape from the fishbowl of the presidency and the perks and distractions of which he can avail himself between now and then.
The man doesn’t have the education he claims to have. If he did, he would have written to the colleges and requested the public release of his educational activities. Why would you not be proud of those accomplishments?
Does anyone believe anything Obama says about anything? If he promised the sun will rise next Monday morning, tens of millions of Americans will start planning for life in darkness, and for good reason.
Barack Obama and others like him have a direct connection to evil; whereas too often people serving God are not directly connected to truth. This is why Obama can lie and push his destructive agenda and mercilessly attack our freedoms and sacred institutions.
MRC's Bozell Still Won't Resign For His Lies, Now Tries To Rewrite History Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham write in their Feb. 14 column:
That Brian Williams six-month suspension has fallen flat. His critics aren't mollified. His supporters are clearly dispirited. Everyone knows this one is not over -- though his tenure at NBC may very well be done.
The suspension isn't going to work for the same reason his apology went nowhere. It resolves nothing.
Hubris. So many celebrities -- be they politicians, journalists, artists -- refuse to accept that the cover-up and obfuscation is always worse than the crime. Time and again, when honesty and humility beckon, they are nowhere to be found.
Bozell might as well be writing about himself. As we've documented, Bozell has yet to face any punishment for years of presenting Graham's work ghostwriting his column as his own -- only when it was exposed last year did Bozell consent to adding Graham's byline to his, and he still won't retroactively credit Graham for his earlier work.
Yet he has the hubris for attack Williams for exaggerations that led to the suspension. Ofcourse, Bozell and Graham don't care about journalism -- they care about having Williams as a scalp on the walls of the MRC's spacious new headquarters in suburban Washington, D.C.
But Bozell and Graham not content to wallow in hypocrisy -- they also want to rewrite history as well, setting up St. Ronnie as an example of how to handle a scandal:
Ronald Reagan did address Iran-Contra immediately, personally taking responsibility and firing staff responsible. But the body language of his administration and supporters (we were in that number) was different: The Contra cause was noble (and it was), therefore the funding was, well, clever. Except it was illegal.
When the Lebanese newspaper "Al-Shiraa" printed an exposé on the clandestine activities in November 1986, Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred. He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal. Despite the fact that Reagan defended the actions by virtue of their good intentions, his honesty was doubted. Polls showed that only 14 percent of Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages.
Bozell and Graham conclude by lecturing:
Brian Williams lied. The honorable thing was to apologize honestly and completely, and resign. His career would have been resurrected immediately. If he refused to, the honorable decision from Comcast/NBC was termination and a corporate apology (which they owed anyway). Neither happened. Instead it was a bizarre long-term suspension, and another self-inflicted wound, and more bleeding as the Peacock Network's credibility disintegrates.
We'll believe their sincerity about this when Bozell does the honorable thing by apologizing for his years of deception and resign as MRC president. But Bozell simply doesn't have the guts to live up to his own self-proclaimed standards.
Again, everything appearing under Bozell's name about Williams may as well be writing about Bozell himself. Is that perhaps Graham's revenge for years of unsung ghostwriting?
WND Isn't Giving Up On Claiming Obama Is The Antichrist Topic: WorldNetDaily
No, WorldNetDaily still hasn't given up on the idea that President Obama is the Antichrist.
In a Feb. 16 article, WND executive news editor Joe Kovacs -- who, if you'll recall, has said he joined WND because Joseph Farah and Co. "cared about reporting the news. I mean the real news. The news that matters" -- reported on a newspaper's correction about whether a letter writer called Obama the Antichrist. Kovacs seemed to be playing the story as a joke ... until the final paragraph, where he tried to bolster the idea:
Ironically, the night Obama was first elected president in November 2008, the three-digit winning lottery number in Illinois, the state in which Obama resided at the time he was running, was 666, a figure which the Book of Revelation in the New Testament calls the “number of the beast.”
So, apparently, the "real news" and "the news that matters" to Kovacs is keeping the fringe-right idea of Obama as Antichrist alive. Good to know.
Why Is MRC's Graham Putting 'Reverend' In Scare Quotes for Sharpton? Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham does a curious thing in his Feb. 14 NewsBusters post attacking Al Sharpton: When referring to Sharpton, he puts "Reverend" in scare quotes. Those scare quotes, though, create the impression that Graham believes Sharpton isn't a real reverend -- even though he's an ordained minister -- because he believes evolution exists:
“Reverend” Al Sharpton isn’t too big on the Bible, certainly not on the tale that God created the world and everything in it. MSNBC tweeted out Sharpton’s Thursday night segment where he wished his viewers and guests “Happy Darwin Day” three times, and mocked Gov. Scott Walker for skipping an evolution question in a London interview.
A snarky commenter on MSNBC.com noted that Sharpton was pushing Darwin, whose book The Origin of Species was also titled The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Uh-oh, Rev.
As explained on Wikipedia, Darwin's use of "race" is a synonym for "varieties," not the modern connotation of human races; the first use of the word in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants." Graham might want to vet the random "snarky commenters" from whom he gets his inspiration a little more closely.
Nevertheless, Graham then goes on to claim, "Apparently, in other books, Darwin expressed the thought the 'Negro' was inferior, and 'the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.' That might be worth a segment." Interestingly, the link Graham provides as evidence of this -- from a blog by John S. Wilkins focused on evolution -- points out that Darwin's clinging to the racial stereotypes pervasive in his era actually contradict his theory of evolution:
Why does Darwin do this? In the early days of a theory or new view, it is hard to puzzle out all the ramifications of the idea, and to isolate it from superficially similar ideas already in the air. Darwin’s notion of evolution does not require progress, or inferior versus superior races, but he’s being led down that path by the culture around him, and the fact, after all, that he is a member of a privileged class (historically fairly recently so) of an imperial society, with a history of devaluing those who were not in control. It turns out, Darwin is human after all.
Anyway, the implication remains that Graham appears to believe Sharpton isn't a real reverend because he acknowledges evolution. So we asked him via Twitter:
Graham's first response: "He's a RINO. Reverend In Name Only. Starts with refusing for decades to acknowledge his sin in the Brawley hoax."
Fair enough; it's a legitimate criticism. Then he added: "And it's funny he's channeling the Darwinists and science against Christian conservatives, like he's Ricky Gervais."
That seems to confirm that, in Graham's view, evolution is incompatible with being a "real" Christian, and definitely not compatible with being a Christian minister.
Then we asked Graham if the MRC would start putting scare quotes around "Dr." when referring to anti-abortion activist Alveda King -- after all, unlike Sharpton's title, King didn't earn hers; the doctorate is honorary. Graham didn't respond.
Matt Barber Lies About The SPLC Topic: WorldNetDaily
In the midst of a rant against thte Southern Poverty Law Center in his Feb. 13 WorldNetDaily column, Matt Barber complains about how the SPLC portrays him:
The “social justice” organization’s most recent hit on me came this past Monday in the form of a “Hatewatch” report. While the SPLC’s lies about me are legion, a shining example can be found in this particular report’s claim that I have said, “HIV is a punishment from God for homosexuality.” I have never said this, nor even remotely suggested it. Neither do I believe it. It’s a lie.
If you look at the SPLC article to which Barber is referring, it does not claim that statement attributed to Barber as a direct quote and is presented as a paraphrase:
Matt Barber, the editor of the virulently anti-LGBT Barbwire.com, is a frequent host of the Liberty Counsel’s Faith and Freedom Radio. Barber has Tweeted that “Fake ‘gay marriage’ is fake ‘consummated’ through squalid and feculent abuse of the reproductive and digestive systems.” He has called same-sex parenting a form of child abuse, and [s]aid that HIV is a punishment from God for homosexuality, stating that “it is never good, healthy, normal or natural.” He also expressed support for Russia’s draconian anti-LGBT laws, saying that he would like to see laws that “stop homosexual activist propaganda from corrupting children in our nation and we need to see that right here in the United States.”
The link the SPLC uses to support that statement is a Right Wing Watch post quoting from a September WND column by Barber:
Scripture admonishes, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. It is hateful to promote a sin-centered lifestyle to children, to anyone for that matter, which leads to disease, death and, unless repented of, eternal separation from God.
It bears repeating: “[H]alf of all gay and bisexual men will be HIV-positive by age 50.”
The wages of sin is death.
Yet in today’s upside-down world it is we who are disingenuously accused of “hate” – those of us who remain compassionate and bold enough to warn our fellow fallen human beings of the spiritual, emotional and, yes, even the physical death that comes as a natural consequence of unnatural behaviors. A toxic cloud of political correctness distorts reality, choking off any honest appraisal of these self-destructive sexual behaviors. We truly live in a dark age that calls evil good and good evil.
Homosexual conduct is always sin. It always has been. It always will be. It is never good, healthy, normal or natural.
The wages of sin is death.
Summarizing Barber's statements to "HIV is a punishment from God for homosexuality" is perfectly accurate. Barber does not explain why it isn't.
In other words, Barber is a liar. But he's not done lying:
In the same report, the SPLC attacked my good friend and former colleague Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel – a legitimate civil rights organization by contrast – absurdly asserting that as the judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage” becomes a widespread reality, Staver has said, “everyone will decide to be gay and society will ‘cease to exist.’”
I kid you not. They actually wrote that and attributed it to Staver. Read it for yourself. Again, this particular whopper is so stupid that it strains credulity to imagine how they thought it would fly.
Apology? I won’t hold my breath.
The SPLC cites a Right Wing Watch transcript of a radio interview in which Staver stated: "If you ultimately promoted same-sex marriage and everyone started to go towards same-sex marriage, what would happen to society? It would just simply cease to exist."
So, yes, Staver is pretty much saying what the SPLC claims he is. And Barber is a liar.
Will Barber apologize for his lies? We won't hold our collective breath.
Even A Mere $33,000 Spent On LGBT Issues Is A Waste, According To CNS' Hunter Topic: CNSNews.com
No amount of federal spending on LGBT issues, it seems, is too small for CNSNews.com deputy managing editor Melanie Hunter to portray as a waste.
Hunter adds to her pile of obsession over LGBT-related federal spending -- she has written no federal spending articles on any other subject -- with a Feb. 13 article:
The National Institutes of Health has awarded $33,037 in taxpayer funds to the University of South Florida to study factors that can increase vaccination among gay men for the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent them from developing anal cancer.
Yep, even a mere $33,000 is considered to be a waste by Hunter if it goes toward LGBT-related issues.
Hunter has yet to explain her obession on this subject.