Race-Baiter Colin Flaherty Pops Up At AIM To Promote New Book Topic: Accuracy in Media
Colin Flaherty's new book, "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry," appears to be another race-baiting tome like his last, "White Girl Bleed A Lot" -- the rogue's gallery of mug shots of black men on the book's cover would seem to bear that out. It's also a self-published tome as his earlier book started as; the fact that Flaherty went this route again appears to mean that he's not expecting WorldNetDaily to pick it up, which it did with "White Girl."
So Flaherty must go downmarket to find someone to promote his race-baiting. Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid obliges in a March 19 article, in which he lets Flaherty rant that the racial situation in Ferguson, Mo., is about nothing more than traffic tickets:
Colin Flaherty, an award winning reporter and author of Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it, says that what happened in Ferguson was a carefully orchestrated hoax. He notes how in an amazing turnabout, the false claims about an unprovoked murder of a young black man became complaints about too many traffic tickets for black people.
“We now know the Ferguson riots were all about racist traffic tickets and not the relentless white racism and violence that killed yet another black person,” Flaherty notes. “The greatest bait and switch of our generation and few reporters even seemed to notice. Why would they? They are used to it by now.
“First they told us about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ When that turned out to be a lie, they told us about the Gentle Giant. It continued for months, one lie after another, each discarded, replaced and sometimes recycled.” Flaherty reminds us of several of the lies. We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back, that he was minding his own business, and trying to surrender.
It turned out, according to the DOJ, that Ferguson was all about traffic tickets. “Funny: At the time, no one mentioned the traffic tickets that now stand with the firehoses and police dogs of Selma as icons of racist oppression,” Flaherty notes.
The facts were such that the Attorney General had to grudgingly admit what many others had been saying from day one. “The facts of the death and the fairy tale that followed were all concocted, spoon fed to a willing press corps that did nothing but ask for more,” he points out.
Then, suddenly, in another diversion from the essential truth of what happened, the media picked up on another narrative—that blacks were the victims of too many traffic tickets. “The day after the Attorney General’s confession, the manufactured outrage of Chris Cuomo of CNN was on full display as he and the Brown family attorney railed against the injustice of too many traffic tickets,” commented Flaherty.
Of course, like a lot of thingsFlahertysays, he's being dishonest to promote his race-baiting. Traffic tickets were the symptom; official racial bias was the disease.
The DOJ report showed that Ferguson police routinely violated the constitutional rights of black citizens by stopping drivers without reasonable suspicion, making arrests without probable cause and using excessive force. Ferguson police officers also sent out racist emails, including one showing a bare chested group of dancing women apparently in Africa with the caption, “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.”
Why do we get the feeling that's one email Flaherty would not have any reservations in sending out to his friends?
The fact that people like Flaherty pretend that the only racists in America are black is one reason things like Ferguson happened. But as long as Flaherty can find an outlet, however increasingly far-right that it may be, he'll continue to spout his racial know-nothingness and pretend he's some kind of expert.
When Barack Obama is asked about mass conspiracy and wrongdoing at the VA and he responds by saying that he just found out about it from watching the evening news, there’s only two concise ways to view that explanation. Mr. Obama, you’re either incompetent or a liar. There’s really no other way to spin that, and I’m not sure which one’s worse.
The question I ask is why does Obama make it a priority to go after American citizens and crush them as though they were enemies of the state? On the flip side, why does he cozy up to the Castro regime in Cuba, the mullahs in Iran, and let the atrocities of ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups continue day after day? Why does he paint the entire police force in the U.S. with a broad brush and insinuate that they are “racists”?
It should be obvious to everyone by now that Mayor Rudy Giuliani was right when he said that Barack Obama does not love this country. Add it up, folks. Now who in Washington has the guts to do something about it?
In this time of increasingly distinct lines being drawn between Americans who recognize the abject wickedness of this administration and its enablers and those who do not, it is profoundly sad that Obama’s presence in Selma was further dignified by some who ought to know better. Obama, his foul wife and their spawn were joined in Selma by a delegation that included former President George W. Bush, former first lady Laura Bush, around 100 members of Congress and other dignitaries.
Yes, Obama profaned the anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma with his very presence, because he is a liar and a fraud who has actually harmed race relations in America and under whom the lot of black Americans has become substantially worse. In character, he is the antithesis of those who suffered and struggled during the Civil Rights Movement.
The irony that punctuates this Selma travesty is the fact that since Obama self-identifies as black and is recognized as such, his attendance supposedly lent more significance to the event than if he had not been a person “of color.”
Only the talk-show hosts and a few intrepid commentators have it right: Obama’s latent anti-Semitism is coming to the fore. In fact, it’s no longer latent – if it ever were. It’s open. It’s active. It’s visible for all to see.
There’s one tiny Jewish state in the world – and that’s apparently one too many for Obama.
Some people think Obama’s a Muslim, and that’s why he’s always bending figuratively and sometimes literally to our sworn enemies. Some people believe he’s a Christian, even though he doesn’t attend church, read the Bible or share the typical Christian’s concern for Israel’s survival.
Still, even among that latter group, there are many who wonder what sort of Christian could attend a church for 20 years where the sermons often involved blasphemous attacks on America, and where 9/11 was justified as a case of America’s finally getting its comeuppance.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. It’s time that we stop mincing words and call it like it is. We have a president who lied his way into the White House and continues to lie while in office. He is not a Christian. He is a Muslim, through his father and given his Islamic education as a child, as well as his continuing association with black-Muslim despots, Jew-haters like Rev. Louis Farrakhan and a host of others who are well-known for their racism and bigotry. This explains how he acts and does not act with regard to Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the rest of us. Thus far, in the media only Andrea Tantaros of Fox News has raised the issue of Obama’s apparent anti-Semitism, suggesting Obama is a racist and an anti-Semite, plain and simple.
Americans are realizing that Obama’s arrogance and his hatred of the military, like his ambitions for “transformative actions,” know no bounds. What we do not yet know is what price our politicians will pay in 2016 for ignoring their constitutional duty to impeach and remove this increasingly dangerous impostor.
Finally! MRC (Briefly) Mentions O'Reilly Honesty Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
This week marked the first time in two weeks that the Media Research Center has made even an oblique reference to the growing controversy over the accuracy of statements Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has made about his reporting.
A March 16 post by Kyle Drennen grumbles that NBC's Chuck Todd praised how his network handled similar allegations against news anchor Brian Williams while Fox tried to deflect the accusations against O'Reilly by running a "political campaign." Drennen comments no further on O'Reilly.
A March 17 MRC item by Jordan Ecarma is focused on repeating Barney Frank's criticism of Hillary Clinton's email controversy. Almost as an afterthough, Ecarma noted that Frank was asked "if he was 'enjoying' the current controversy surrounding O’Reilly. The TV host was recently accused of lying about or exaggerating his war experiences, similar to the revelations that crumbled the reputation of longtime NBC anchor Brian Williams." Like Drennen, Ecarma does nothing further with it.
Previous to these posts, the last mention of the O'Reilly scandal at the MRC was on March 2, and that was to attack George Soros for funding groups that have highlighted it.
By contrast, the MRC couldn't say often enough that Williams was a liar despite doing basically the same thing O'Reilly has been proven to have done.
WND's Chumley Freaks Out About EPA Shower Grant Topic: WorldNetDaily
Cheryl Chumley's March 18 WorldNetDaily article ominously begins: "The Environmental Protection Agency’s latest regulatory push seems to be aimed at monitoring water usage in the nation’s hotels, with the aim of getting guests to 'change [their] behavior,' the text of a federal grant reads."
But rather than actually quoting from the text of said grant, she quotes Rush Limbaugh claiming to read from it, then fearmongering, "The EPA is going to monitor the length of your showers. My point is, if this ever really happens, this not going to stop at hotels. You’re going to have one of these in your house."
If Chumley had bothered to read the grant itself -- which is for a mere $15,000 -- she would know it says no such thing. There is nothing about a "regulatory push" or any mandatory directive; the goal is to "explore the market potential" of a device that would "provide hotel guests with the ability to monitor their daily water online or using a smartphone app, and will assist hotel guest in modifying their behavior to help conserve water."
Chumley's fearmongering was reinforced by a photo accompanying her article of a shower head with a ... thing attached to it:
Actually, that thing is not that non-existent EPA-mandated flow meter -- the grant aims to create a "small size" device. As this website illustratea, it appears to be a filter that removes chlorine from shower water and replaces it with vitamin C.
Given WND's promotion of fluoride conspiracies and editor Joseph Farah's paranoid aversion to fluoride as a "poison" that "accumulates in your body," this is a device we'd be likely to find on the showers in his house.
Newsmax has longhad a thing for Ed Klein, promoting his dubious, unsubstantiated claims attacking Hillary Clinton and President Obama despite his history of being repeatedly discredited.
Newsmax keeps the lovefest going in a March 14 article by Todd Beamon touting Klein's (unsubstantiated, of course) claim that the Obama administration is trying to stop Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016. Beamon gave Klein a pass on the lack of substantiation, choosing instead to boost Klein's media cred by noting that he "Klein, who worked as the editor of The New York Times Magazine from 1977 to 1987 and as an editor for Newsweek" and where his previous Obama-bashing books placed on the New York Times' best-seller list (as if sales equated to crediiblity).
A March 16 Newsmax article by Jason Devaney regurgitated Rush Limbaugh's own regurgitation of Klein's claim that Obama is sabogaging Clinton's presidential campaign, though Klein's name is curiously absent from the article. Devaney doesn't explain why something is newsworthy merely because Limbaugh utters it, which is the tone of his article.
WND Buries Its Financial Interest In 'Blood Moons' Battle Topic: WorldNetDaily
An unbylined March 18 WorldNetDaily article is a lengthy attack on pastor John Hagee for allegedly stealing credit for discovering the "blood moons" -- a series of four lunar eclipses that right-wing evangelicals are trying to link to prophecies involving Israel. In fact, WND claims, "The discovery, however, was made by pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries of Bonney Lake, Washington, seven years ago – a finding he has discussed in his church, on Christian television, at public conferences ever since and which he describes in detail in his own bestselling book, 'Blood Moons,' and a bestselling movie of the same name."
But who published Blitz's "bestselling" (WND doesn't back up the claim with any evidence) book and made that "bestselling" movie? WNDdid. That's not disclosed until the 23rd paragraph of the article.
The article quotes WND editor Joseph Farah "giving his opinions" on the situation and trashing Hagee: “If anyone thinks they have the complete blood moons story after reading Hagee’s book or seeing his movie, they are sadly mistaken. Biltz’s book and movie contain far more data from NASA and a much more thorough biblical and prophetic analysis. That’s not sour grapes on my part. That is just the unvarnished truth.”
The article also makes the awkward admission that WND "heavily promoted Hagee’s book" along with its own work from Blitz, but insisted that it did so 'because it would bring attention to the subject matter." AS of this writing, Hagee's book is still for sale at the WND store. WND also concedes that "Hagee briefly served as a weekly WND columnist in 2002."
The financial motivation aside, it's actually a fairly well-written article by WND standards -- it actually gets a quote from Hagee about how he found about the "blood moons." But it somehow doesn't warrant having a byline, while Bob Unruh regularly gets one for his egregiously biased and falsehood-filled stenography. Strange.
UPDATE: A new article states that WND has sent a letter to Hagee demanding that he publicly retract his claim to be the "discoverer" of the "blood moons" idea.
MRC: Netanyahu's Racist Attack On Arabs Is OK Because Arabs Are Anti-Semitic Topic: Media Research Center
When media outlets highlighted the racist nature of Benjamin Netanyahu's ranting about Arabs voting in the Israeli election in an attempt to boost right-wing turnout that would support him, the Media Research Center took exception.
The MRC seems to know that Netanyahu's remarks are indefensible. So it's taking a diversionary tack by arguing that israeli Arabs are anti-Semitic.
Curtis Houck complained hat CNN's Christiane Amanpour noted criticism within Israel of Netanyahu's Arab attack, then added: "While Amanpour was mounting a full defense of Arab-Israelis, she failed to cite the fact that the Arab parties that combined to form a joint list for the election include members who have some radical and arguably anti-Semitic policies themselves."
Clay Waters follows in those footsteps by dismissing criticism by New York Tiems writers of Netanyahu by asserting "Speaking of racism, official Palestinian Authoritarian descriptions of Jews as apes and pigs was left unremarked upon by the hypocritical Times."
Waters then huffed, "Israel must count itself fortunate indeed that the liberals on the Times editorial page know what's best for a country thousands of miles away and surrounded by enemies who want it wiped off the map."
Meanwhile, Netanyahu must count himself fortunate that American right-wingers like those at the MRC will give him a pass on his racism by making the lame equivocation that his enemies are supposedly even more racist.
The MRC has so little problem with Netanyahu's racism, in fact, that it's running a promotion A March 18 email to its mailing list complains that MSNBC "went out of their way to attack the sitting prime minister" by having on a guest who highlighted the racist attack, as described in an item by Kyle Drennen.The MRC then promoted its anti-NBC petition.
At no point does the MRC deny that Netanyahu's words are racist; they are simply attacking anyone who points that out.
WND's Movie Reviewer: 'Cinderella' Lacks Reminders Of 'God's Truth' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily movie reviewer Drew Zahn likes to impose his (and his eemployer's) right-wing Christian agenda on the movies he reviews. His review of the new "Cinderella" movie is no exception. Zahn is a little unhappy that the film doesn't try to clobber young girls over the head with a Christian worldview:
I do have another note of caution, which stems from the fact this is a column not about family-friendly films, but about worldview.
This version of “Cinderella,” for all its commendable virtues, does not flow from a biblical perspective, but offers a moral tale out of a more humanistic persuasion, with a little Disney magic thrown in.
Case in point: At a key point in the set-up, Cinderella’s birth mother asks her, “Who looks after us?”
Now, biblically that answer would be “God,” but Cinderella answers, “Fairy godmothers.”
It’s a minor point, to be sure, but illustrative of the reality that the moral lessons of “Cinderella” are not seasoned with God’s truth.
At another point, Cinderella is told, “This great secret will see you though all perils life has to offer: Have courage and be kind.”
Courage and kindness are virtues, but to these great life questions Cinderella is asked, the answers she’s getting clearly are not coming from the Westminster Catechism.
You might remember that Zahn gave a thumbs-down to the Disney film "Tangled" because it teaches kids how to think for themselves.
'Dancing With The Stars' Is Bigger News At CNS Than GOP Congressman's Resignation Over Corruption Topic: CNSNews.com
Rep. Aaron Schock was a rising star in Republican circles, and CNSNews.com had no problem promoting him. Last September, for instances, CNS devoted original articles to Schock pontificating about how Christians are "in the majority" in the U.S. and that President Obama does not need congressional authorization to take military action against ISIL. In November, CNS penned an article on Schock attacking Obamacare.
Schock resigned his congressional seat over questions about his lavish spending, but CNS is not terribly interested in reporting it. So much so, in fact, that it does not even consider the event to be front-page news.
A screenshot of the top of CNS' front page taken at around 6:30 p.m. ET on March 17 -- a couple hours after Schock's resignation -- shows that a breaking-news banner was devoted to the Israeli election but no mention of Schock's resignation. There is, however, an article about the new season of "Dancing with the Stars." So, apparently, CNS considers a TV show about dancing celebrities to be more important than a congressman's resignation.
Another screenshot of the front page taken around 10 a.m. ET March 18 shows a breaking-news banner for an attack on a museum in Tunisia -- but, again, no Schock. The "Dancing With the Stars" article has fallen off the list, but this update, like the earlier one, includes the latest rant from dishonest anti-abortion extremist Lila Rose.
CNS subscribes to the Associated Press, and it did publish an AP article on Schock's resignation on March 17 -- it simply did not think the story warranted front-page coverage. But unless you burrow way down into CNS' Washington page, you won't find it.
The only original coverage of Schock's resignation to be found on any MRC website is a post on the MRCTV blog.
It seems that CNS will report on Republican members of Congress only if they are feeding the agenda of CNS and its parent, the Media Research Center. And if you are corrupt and have to resign because of it, CNS will cover it up to preserve the Republican brand.
WND Adds Benham Brothers As Columnists, Downplays Their Anti-Gay Remarks Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily couldn't be prouder to have David and Jason Benham as columnists, as the March 13 WND article announcing their arrival makes clear. After all, their anti-gay values mesh so very well with thoseofWND's.
Of course, WND does its best to pretend the Benhams really aren't anti-gay at all; they just believe in "biblical marriage." Let the whitewashing begin:
As WND reported, home-flippers David and Jason Benham were elated when a production company first approached them about starring in their own reality TV show.
Eventually five networks made offers, with HGTV submitting the best: six one-hour episodes, straight to TV, with no pilot episode necessary.
The show was to be called “Flip it Forward” and would feature the Benham brothers transforming fixer-uppers into dream homes for families.
As Christians, they felt graced by God.
Then it crashed. A liberal “watchdog” organization made a campaign of what HGTV already knew – that the brothers believed in the standards established in the Bible regarding marriage, life and more.
It came out in the media, however, as “anti-gay.” And “anti-choice.”
But the show was canceled because of pressure from liberal and progressive interests.
WND will never tell you that the Benhams -- sons of anti-abortion extremist Flip Benham -- are as anti-gay as advertised. Right Wing Watch has documented the Benhams calling homosexuals "destructive," "vile," and controlled by "demonic forces."
The Benhams' inaugural column invokes some of that anti-gay sentiment, if toned down. They complain that "openly gay former major leaguer" Billy Bean "Bean was invited to openly express his views on homosexuality as Major League Baseball’s ambassador of inclusion" while "Daniel Murphy of the New York Mets, a devout Christian, was told he could only talk baseball after he respectfully offered his thoughts when asked about the homosexual lifestyle."
Yep, the Benhams and WND were made for each other.
MRC Attacks Writer For Reporting Facts About Margaret Sanger Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a fund-raising campaign going on now featuring the grim, bearded visage of Brent Bozell and the slogan, "Join the MOVEMENT and demand TRUTH in media." But there are sometimes when the MRC doesn't want the truth to be told.
In a March 13 MRC article, Katie Yoder goes after a writer for Christianity Today simply for telling the truth about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:
Does Margaret Sanger’s legacy have redeeming qualities? One Christianity Today board member thinks it does.
For Christianity Today, Rachel Marie Stone discussed how “Contraception Saves Lives” in a March 11 piece. Stone, who sits on the editorial board of CT, attempted to redeem Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger through her birth control support – and “give the charge of ‘eugenicist’ a more complete background.” Facing a Twitter backlash, she later defended her story by tweeting about Sanger’s “compassion.”
To begin her piece, Stone told the story of Margaret Sanger as a “young nurse” who promised to make contraception “widely available to working class and poor women” after watching a woman die after an attempted abortion.
Stone went on to detail how she encountered a midwife, Lena, in Malawi, Africa who studied at the Margaret Sanger Center in Lower Manhattan. “A great woman, Margaret Sanger!” Lena told her.
While Stone “wasn’t sure how to reply,” she explained how “Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, which, contrary to what Sanger would have wished, is today the largest provider of abortions in the United States.”
“Sanger herself opposed abortion,” Stone said, by “saying that ‘no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.’”
Huh. Wonder if Stone also knows Sanger described birth control as “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit” for a “cleaner race.”
Stone admitted Sanger, “like many medical professionals in her day, did hold eugenicist ideas,” and while she didn’t want to “excuse” Sanger, she did “want to give the charge of ‘eugenicist’ a more complete background.”
We can't have a "more complete background" on someone who's been dead for decades yet remains someone right-wingers like Yoder and the MRC consider a sworn enemy, can we?
At no point does Yoder prove that anything Stone wrote about Sanger is wrong. Instead, she's objecting to it having been written at all. Yoder invokes a professor who furthers the attack on Sanger under a piece less-than-objectively headlined "Margaret Sanger’s legacy is not salvageable, so let’s not try." So much for objective research, eh, prof?
This just shows that Yoder isn't interested in facts when they don't agree with her right-wing agenda -- and that the MRC doesn't really want "TRUTH in media" when it doesn't benefit them.
WND's Newest Lie: Loretta Lynch Is 'Tied to Terrorists, Drug Cartels' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily loves the big lie -- i.e. Obama was born in Kenya and other falsehoods about his "elibibility -- sprinkled amidst numerous smaller lies that come from straight fromthe top.
WND went the big-lie route in the subhead of a March 14 article by Garth Kant about Loretta Lynch's nomination for attorney general: "Attorney general nominee tied to terrorists, drug cartels."
That is a bald-faced lie, and WND knows it.
Here is the evidence Kant presents purporting to back up that false claim:
But behind the scenes, the sudden change of hearts also may be due to a WND expose about allegations that Lynch covered-up money laundering by drug lords and terrorists.
WND has chronicled in great detail charges that Lynch, in her capacity as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 2012, arranged a mere slap-on-the-wrist settlement with the world’s second-largest bank, HSBC, for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists.
The wrist-slap $1.9 billion fine paid to the U.S. government, and an admission of “willful criminal conduct,” allowed HSBC to enter into a “deferred prosecution” settlement, which ended the investigation and stopped the filing of criminal charges.
At no point has WND ever documented that Lynch is "tied" to terrorists or drug cartels. Lynch's work to achieve a monetary settlement instead of a criminal prosecution does not equal "covering up" for "drug lords and terrorists." And HSBC's $1.9 billion fine is hardly a "wrist-slap" as Kant claims; it was a record fine at when it was imposed in 2012.
Kant is so completely down with the big lie that he repeated it in the body of his March 16 article, referencing "WND’s revelations about Lynch’s ties to terrorists and drug lords."
WND has been pushing Lynch's link to the HSBC settlement in a desperate attempt to promote another lie: that it broke the HSBC story. As we've documented, it didn't -- WND's initial reports on HSBC actually acknowledged earlier reporting.
But with this claim, WND appears to be blowing past your garden-variety lie and straight to libel. Lynch should check with a lawyer to see if she has a case -- and WND might want to consult an attorney to formulate a defense.
There are many good reasons nobody believes WND, and this kind of deliberate, malicious libel is just one of them.
WND's Klein Sets Up Blame Game for Netanyahu Loss Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily coverage of the upcoming Israeli elections by Jerusalem-based reprter Aaron Klein has been not only sparse -- since March 1, he has written only three articles on it, even though the election is tomorrow -- it has been very narrow, focusedonly on the issue of American political operatives who once worked for President Obama's campaign and now working for the anti-Netanyahu coalition.
As befits his history of championing Netanyahu over the years, Klein's work comes off as press releases for the Netanyahu campaign. He does it again in a March 14 article in which once again helps Netanyahu play the victim card once again by suggesting the Obama administration is directly involved in the anti-Netayahu effort -- something he has no direct evidence of.
As we've noted, Klein conveniently ignores the fact that U.S. Republican operatives are working for Netanyahu's campaign. Additionally, as Josh Marshall points out, Netanyahu benefits from the existence of the Israel Hayom newspaper, a popular but money-losing newspaper in Israel founded by American casino magnate (and right-wing moneybags) Sheldon Adelson to promote Netanyahu and his policies.
Klein once again promotes the more-than-vaguely-racist idea that Arabs in Israel shouldn't be mobilized to vote because "Israeli election trends have long demonstrated that Arab citizens vote overwhelmingly for left-wing and Arab parties. Any increase in the Arab vote would clearly come at the expense of the Likud Party and other right-wing parties."
There's much more going on in the Israeli election than Klein will ever tell you at WND -- and that may explain his reporting strategy.
Wwe've previously reported that Netanyahu and his Likud party have been embroiled in numerous controversies that may cost them the election -- something Klein has completely censored in his WND reporting. Indeed, the most recent polling shows Likud slightly behind.
By focusing solely (and disingenuously) on the issue of foreign anti-Netanyahu operatives, Klein appears to be setting up the narrative that if Netanyahu and Likud lose, it's the fault of those operatives. It's something that Klein can apparently get a lot of stories out of, and promoting this conspiracy theory is apparently easier for him than, you know, doing real reporting about what is actually happening in the election.
Remember, Klein is a right-wing extremist who has expressed sympathy for the far-right views of Meir Kahane and who has repeatedly used his reporting to advance the agenda of right-wing elements in Israel. That appears to be what he's doing here as well.
MRC's Graham Baselessly Attacks Anita Hill Again Topic: Media Research Center
The fact that Anita Hill has never been proven wrong about her sexual harrassment allegations against Clarence Thomas hasn't kept the Media Research Center from holding a grudge against her for more than two decades. For instance, MRC official Tim Graham branded Hill as a liar despite offering no proof (or any consideration of the possibility that Thomas is the one who's lying by denying Hill's accusations), and Scott Whitlock baselessly suggested that Hill's only motivation was money.
With the news of a TV movie in the works about the Hill-Thomas conflict, Graham was in grump mode in a March 14 NewsBusters post:
HBO is making another liberal propaganda flick – and it’s sloppy seconds to Showtime. Lesley Goldberg of The Hollywood Reporter had the exclusive: Kerry Washington, star of ABC’s Scandal, will play Anita Hill in the movie Confirmation.
In 1999, Showtime aired a similar "fact-based" film called Strange Justice, based on the Clarence Thomas-attacking book by liberal reporters Jill Abramson (later executive editor of The New York Times) and Jane Mayer.
The film is expected to detail “the explosive 1991 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings (at which Hill testified), which brought the country to a standstill and forever changed the way people think about sexual harassment, victims' rights and modern-day race relations.”
Translation: the sympathetic star won’t be seen as a liberal activist who wanted to sink the Thomas nomination anonymously, but was forced into testifying and offered unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment by Thomas (which remain unsubstantiated, but endlessly regurgitated by liberals.)
Needless to say, Graham offers no evidence that Hill was solely "a liberal activist who wanted to sink the Thomas nomination." Indeed, all he's doing is regurgitating Thomas' own attacks on Hill -- as if Thomas' word should automatically be trusted over that of Hill's.
But then, the MRC has always denigrated anyone who makes sexual harrassment claims against its favorite conservatives. In 2011, for instance, the MRC similarly denounced harrassment claims made against would-be GOP presidential candidate (and personal friend of MRC chief Brent Bozell) Herman Cain as "unsubstantiated" -- even though it was on record that the National Restaurant Association, while it was headed by Cain, reached monetary agreements with two women to settle harassment claims -- and the MRC's Dan Gainor similarly played the gold-digger card against Cain's accusers.