Emily Richards writes in a July 13 CNSNews.com article:
A British professor's new model of solar cycles predicts that the Earth could be heading toward a "mini ice age" that would create conditions not seen since 1645 during the "Maunder minimum" - when London’s Thames River froze over.
Solar activity may fall by as much as 60 percent during the 2030s, according to Mathematics Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in England.
If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.
The root of the problem here may be a poorly worded quote in the press release implying an imminent 60 percent decline in solar activity. Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting.
[...]
But let’s play devil’s advocate: What if Zharkova is right about the decline in solar activity? There’s still no need to worry (or to become complacent about global warming). Even assuming sunspots are in the process of shutting down, as happened during the Maunder minimum and Little Ice Age, it wouldn’t matter much.
An interesting new study published in June showed that a sharp decline in solar activity to record lows could have a relatively large impact on regional climate over a period of decades. But even the return of a Maunder minimum type slowdown in solar activity—an extreme scenario, by any measure—would slow global warming by only about a half-degree in northern Europe. That’s essentially negligible, on a global scale.
Unsurprisingly, Richards contacts nobody to respond to the study. Also unsurprisingly, CNS published an July 20 op-ed by H. Sterling Burnett, one of the climate deniers at the right-wing Heartland Institute, to reinforce the bogus claim:
Another recent scientific paper projects an imminent cooling without any caveats about it being regional in nature or overwhelmed by human carbon dioxide emissions. A paper published by the Royal Astronomical Society indicates the Sun will likely go silent within 15 years, leading to an extended period of colder temperatures. Lead author of the report Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University has said, when tested against actual data and measurements, the model the researchers developed to test the relationship between fluctuating magnetic waves on the surface of the Sun and their impacts on solar activity and Earth’s climate had an accuracy rating of 97 percent.
With new research emerging nearly daily to indicate Earth is cooling because of decreased solar activity, it certainly seems wise to shift our concern about future climate to how best to respond to colder temperatures and associated climate effects.
Slate notes that climate deniers like Burnett "have a particular fascination with sunspot cycles," but that the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures is weak at best.
Slate adds: "In reality, sunspots fluctuate in an 11-year cycle, and the current cycle is the weakest in 100 years—yet 2014 was the planet’s hottest year in recorded history." Betcha Burnett and CNS won't bring that up.
It seems the deniers have failed again by deliberately ignoring information that undermines their case. Burnett is a paid flack, of course, but what's the excuse for CNS, which purports to be a news organization? Oh, yeah, they get paid to do that as well.
CNS Censors Fact That Congressman's Outrage Is Hypocritical Topic: CNSNews.com
Penny Starr channels a little manufactured outrage in a July 16 CNSNews.com article:
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday it is a “disgrace” that taxpayer dollars go to support Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States.
“Overall, about half of Planned Parenthood’s money comes from taxpayers,” Franks told CNSNews.com following a press conference by members of the House Pro-Life Caucus on the alleged sale of organs from aborted babies by Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. “And this is an organization that supports the murder of 3,000 children in America every day.
“The fact that we’re funding it is a disgrace that beggars my ability to articulate,” Franks said.
But Starr has omitted one key fact: Franks knew about the dishonestly edited video that prompted his comments weeks ago.
Roll Call reports that Franks is among several members of Congress who were shown the video made by anti-abortion extremists weeks ago, but they said nothing until now. Franks spun wildly when called on it, insisting that “The hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media.”
While the Roll Call article was posted a few hours after Starr's, CNS made no effort to update the article with this important information suggesting that Franks' concern is nothing but politically motivated hypocrisy.
Then again, that kind of politically motivated hypocrisy is what fuels CNS, isn't it?
CNS Goes Into Race-Baiting Mode on Obama Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center's creeping WND-ization continues by picking up WorldNetDaily's obsession with race.
In a July 13 CNS article, Susan Jones complained that President Obama used his weekly media address to promote his faie-housing initiative. She expressed particular concern that white suburbs might become less white, fretting that communities "must spend the [federal fair-housing] money in ways that move inner-city minorities, for example, into subsidized housing in wealthier, whiter suburbs."
Apparently, Jones doesn't think minorties have any place in those "whiter suburbs."
Since CNS has given up reporting actual news and instead has embraced its role as one more propaganda arm of the MRC, Jones engages in some trolling of Obama. After noting Obama's statement that children living just a few blocks apart may "lead incredibly different lives," Jones sneered: "President Obama could have used his own daughters as examples. They attend an elite private school in Washington, in a city where many poor blacks struggle in failing public schools."
Jones might look to her employer as an example of how her fellow conservatives are handling the issue. A couple years back, the MRC moved its headquaters from Alexandria, Va., a town with a 66.8 percent white population and a 22.4 percent black population, to Reston, Va., a town with a 70.1 percent white population and just a 9.7 percent black population.
The move also put the MRC in one of those "wealthier, whiter suburbs" Jones fears will be overrun by poor brown people; the median income of Alexandria is $85,706, while in Reston it's $107,962.
CNS Gives A Platform to Anti-Gay Kenyans Topic: CNSNews.com
A July 7 CNSNews.com article by Patrick Goodenough pounds home the anti-gay message in realation to President Obama's upcoming visit to Africa. Goodenough quotes no fewer than seven Kenyan political and religious officials denouncing homosexuality and attacking Obama for even considering discussing the issue of gay rights in Kenya.
Despite the fact that CNS' mission statement claims that it "endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story" Goodenough made no apparent effort to contact any Kenyan official who would not engage in gay-bashing.
Goodenough is apparently so concerned with giving Kenyan gay-bashers a voice that he can't be bothered to tell us what the laws on homosexuality in Kenya are. He obliquoely refers to the situation by noting that "Homosexuality is frowned on in many African countries" and that "same-sex sexual acts are illegal in 76 countries around the world, 36 of them in Africa." But curiously, Goodenough never explains the situation in Kenya.
Homosexuality is illegal in Kenya, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Tthe Kenya National Commission on Human Rights states that gays "are discriminated, stigmatised and subjected to violence because of their sexual orientation." Additionally, gays "often face arbitrary arrest, are often detained at the police stations, subjected to torture and unnecessary harassment by the police who extort money from them and are only released after bribing their way out."
Goodenough and CNS, it seems, are totally down with all of that Kenyan anti-gay hate.
CNS Publishes Birther Lawyer Again Topic: CNSNews.com
Last month, CNSNews.com demonstrated the creeping WND-ism that is taking over the Media Research Center by publishing an anti-gay marriage column by Herbert Titus, a WorldNetDaily favorite who's perhaps best known for claiming that Barack Obama can't be president because he did not have two parents who were American citizens and that his "loyalties" purportedly lie with his Kenyan-born father.
Well, apparently CNS can't get enough of Titus' legally suspect opinions, so he's back in a July 6 column declaring that the Supreme court's ruling on same-sex marriage is "illegitimate and unlawful" and "Worthy only to be disobeyed." Titus concludes his article by he will "will continue to release articles" on how Americans can breakt the law -- a strange position for a so-called legal expert to take.
Well, Titus' view on Obama's eligibility and the definition of "natural born citizen" can be found nowhere in U.S. jurisprudence, which makes anything he has to say on any legal issue rather suspect. We also don't see Titus running around enforcing his extremely narrow definition of "natural born citizen" on Ted Cruz the way he was on Obama, so that makes him a hypocrite as well.
Those flaws, apparently, make him the perfect person to write op-eds for CNS, apparently.
More Bad And Misleading Reporting, Courtesy of CNS Topic: CNSNews.com
We know CNSNews.com is not the place to go for fair and balanced reporting, especially under managing editor Michael W. Chapman. We've found even more examples of misleading reporting.
It was clear from the start that a July 1 CNS article by Lauretta Brown would not be a fair take on high school health clinics that offer contraception, what with the headline blaring, "Seattle 6th Graders Can’t Get a Coke at School, But Can Get an IUD." In the third paragraph of her article, Brown makes this declaration about long-acting reversible contraception such as IUDs:
LARCs are associated with serious side effects, such as uterine perforation and infection. IUDs, specifically, can also act as abortifacients by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Brown is falsely potraying IUDs as being unsafe by highlighting only the "serious side effects." In fact, a 2013 study found that less than 1 percent of users developed complications or serious side effects, and even the fact sheet Brown uses to fearmonger about IUDs admits that "Serious complications from use of an IUD are rare."
Brown's claim that IUDs are an abortifacient because it can "prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg" is a false reading of medical science. The medical definition of an abortion is removal of an implanted egg from the uterus; therefore, if it's not implanted, it's not an abortion.
Further, 50 percent of a woman's fertilized eggs never naturally implant into the uterus, so it seems that under Brown's definition, nature (or God, if you will) is the biggest abortionist of all.
Oh, and Brown never establishes in her article that any sixth-grader in Seattle has ever asked for an IUD -- only that it's theoretically possible -- so that further shoots down her biased attack.
Barbara Hollingsworth serves up her own chunk of bad reporting in a July 7 article:
Obamacare is exhibiting early signs of a “death spiral” as hundreds of insurance plans listed on the federally-run exchanges in 37 states and the District of Columbia request double-digit premium increases for 2016, says David Hogberg, a health care analyst and senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR).
A “death spiral” – which is the insurance pool equivalent of a bankruptcy - occurs when rising premiums force younger, healthier people to drop their insurance coverage due to the increased cost. But their exodus leaves the remaining “risk pool” older, sicker and more expensive to insure than before, necessitating further rate hikes.
Thirteen percent of the people who signed up for Obamacare in 2015 have already been dropped from coverage because many of them failed to pay their share of the subsidized premiums, The New York Times reported.
And that's before the premiums on many policies are due to skyrocket next year.
Hollingsworth fails to mention, as she usually does, that the NCPPR is a right-wing organization that has long attacked Obamacare, so its analysis can't exactly be trusted. At no point does Hollingsworth make an effort to seek anyone to counter NCPPR's "death spiral" fearmongering, making her article completely unbalanced.
Because of that, readers will never know that anti-Obamacare forces like the NCPPR have been howling about a "death spiral" for years, only to be consistently proven wrong.
Further, large rate increase requests mean nothing, let alone a "death spiral." As Mother Jones' Kevin Drum notes, insurance companies always request large rate increases, and they will in the end be more reasonable. Further, Drum notes, more people are likely to continue paying their subsidized premiums in the future because the penalty for not having insurance will increase this year.
But Hollingsworth doesn't bother to tell you that either. That's the standard of reporting CNS has these days.
At CNS, 'Honky' Is Unprintable Topic: CNSNews.com In a July 1 CNS blog post, Melanie Hunter highlights a "Nightly Show" clip in which "actor Joe Morton, who plays Rowan Pope or Papa Pope on ABC’s 'Scandal,' used a racial slur to describe Confederate flag supporters during an impromptu in character monologue."
That slur? It's apparently so offensive to Hunter and CNS that she can't even bear to type out the word.
In her transcription of Morton's monologue, she notes that he (in character) referred to white supportersd of the Confederate flag as "h---- m----- f-----." We'll grant Hunter the "m----- f-----" -- CNS does claim to be a family publication, after all -- but what's that other word that she apparently thinks rises to the level of the N-word in unprintability?
Honky.
The MRC-doctored clip of Morton rather clumsily drops the audio on the offending phrase, but the clip at Comedy Central confirms that Morton did indeed say "honky."
Sure, "honky" is a racial slur, but is it really so offensive to white people -- or anyone, really -- that it must be relegated to H-word status? Who even says the word these days in a manner other than invoking 1960s black radicalism or channeling George Jefferson? We're not aware of anyone who puts the word on that kind of footing -- including CNS itself.
CNS published the word in its full glory in a July 2014 column by Matt Barber in an anti-liberal rant over the Hobby Lobby decision:
Addressing the high court's Hobby Lobby decision last Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fumed, "We have so much to do this month, but the one thing we're going to do during this work period - sooner rather than later - is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men."
To which Justice Clarence Thomas replied, "Say what, honky?"
So, in CNS' eyes, is "honky" a word only white people can use, like some complain that the N-word can only be used by blacks?
And as Wikipedia notes, "honky-tonk" can be considered a derivative of the "honky" insult. So does that mean at CNS, honky-tonks are now known as "h---- -tonks"? Or "caucasian-tonks"?
And conservatives complain about alleged liberal political correctness.
CNS Managing Editor's Obsession With (Most Of) Franklin Graham's Words Continues Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman's obsession with reprinting the anti-gay, anti-Muslim and anti-Obama tirades of Franklin Graham hasn't abated.
We've previously documented how in the first three months of 2015, 25 of the 69 articles Chapman wrote were Franklin Graham regurgitations. The sycophancy continues: In the three months from April 12 to June 30, of the 62 articles Chapman published, 21 were transcriptions of Graham's rantings -- a full one-thrid of Chapman's written output. In addition, threemorearticles by Chapman repeated the rants of Franklin's sister, Anne Graham Lotz.
That means of the 131 articles Chapman has written in 2015, 46 of them, or 35 percent, were dedicated to uncritically repeating Franklin Graham's words.
For all of Chapman's dedicated Graham sycophancy, there are words of his he won't repeat -- the ones where Graham isn't denigrating people he despises. We've already noted that Chapman didn't think Graham's denunciation of the Muhammad cartoon contest where two would-be gunmen were killed as an uncalled-for mocking of Muslims was worth repeating.
In a June 22 Facebook post, Graham said it is time to "set aside" the Confederate battle flag in an effort to boost American unity:
My great-great-grandfathers fought for the South under the Confederate flag during the civil war--both were wounded at Gettysburg and lost limbs. Growing up, many people in the South flew the Confederate flag; but I believe that it’s time for this flag to be set aside as a part of our history. We are all Americans, and we need unity today more than ever. Through faith in Christ we can have love and reconciliation with one another—regardless of race. Jesus Christ can change the human heart and take away the prejudice, racism, and hatred that lies within.
While Chapman has devotedfourCNSposts to Graham's words since June 22, none of them are his words on the Confederate battle flag.
Apparently, if Graham isn't attacking gays, Muslims or the president, Chapman doesn't want to hear about it -- and, more importantly, doesn't want to tell his readers about it. Is that responsible behavior for the managing editor of something that claims to be a news organization?
It's a new month, and you know what that means: Time for Ali Meyer and the rest of the CNSNews.com crew to cherry-pick statistics to make the latest unemployment numbers look as bad as possible and ignore positive news. And they do what they're paid to do:
None of these stories mentioned that 223,000 jobs were created. The first story is the only one to note that the unemployment rate dropped to 5.3 percent, but not until the sixth paragraph.
NEW ARTICLE: CNS' Barely Managing Editor Topic: CNSNews.com
Michael W. Chapman is in charge of CNS' news operation, and he makes sure the news is extremely biased. Read more >>
(ConWebWatch sent the following letter to Terry Jeffrey, CNSNews.com editor-in-chief. We'll let you know if we get a reply.)
Dear Mr. Jeffrey:
I read your June 22 CNS column asking whether an "outrageously provocative" photo of Ted Cruz issued by the Associated Press was an "accidental or deliberate" act. That inspired me to discuss a similar question with you as the head of your own news organization.
On May 16, CNS published an article (curiously credited only to "CNSNews.com Staff") about how President Obama is "marking the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia." Accompanying the photo is a three-year-old picture described as being taken from "The New York City Gay Pride Parade" featuring men dressed only in pink shorts.
Surely you cannot deny that the choice to use this photo with this story was "outrageously provocative." My question to you is: Was it accidental or deliberate? Was that intended to portray President Obama and gays in a negative light -- an argument you ridiculed when the AP invoked it in reaction to criticism of the Cruz photo?
You state that "There is nothing subtle about these photos" -- just as there is nothing subtle about the photo used with the ultimately declared that "It is not not reasonable to conclude these photos were produced and published by accident." Is it similarly unreasonable to conclude that CNS' choice of photo for the May 16 article is an accident as well?
Was the decision not to credit the May 16 article to a specific writer an effort by CNS to shield the writer from criticism for being associated with such an outrageously provocative act?
In permitting such an outrageously provocative act to be posted on your website, are you engaging in a double standard by accusing the AP of doing what your website did?
You state the AP's issuance of the Cruz photo is an "example of liberal media bias," May we assume that CNS' choice of photo to run with the May 16 story is an example of conservative media bias?
Given that the three-year-old photo of the New York City Gay Pride Parade that CNS used for its May 16 article was also issued by the AP, doesn't that undercut your argument that the AP has a liberal bias?
Finally: If the AP is so profoundly biased to a view you (and your employer, the Media Research Center) apparently find abhorrent, why does CNS pay money to the AP to use its news articles and photos?
CNS' First Reaction to Charleston Shooting: Invoking Al Sharpton Topic: CNSNews.com
When it came to covering the news of a white man shooting nine unarmed blacks in Charleston, S.C., CNSNews.com knew what it had to do: pander to the racial animosity of its right-wing readership by raising the specter of Al Sharpton.
Thus, CNS' first piece of original coverage of the Charleston shooting is an article by "CNSNews.com staff" posted at 7:54 a.m. on June 18 quoting Sharpton's statement about the alleged shooter: "Obviously he's deranged. Probably a hate crime."
Jones then undermined her own attempt to portray Sharpton as race-baiting over the shooting later in her article, when she noted that "Police described the mass murder as a hate crime." Oops.
This was embarrassing even by CNS' usual standards -- usually, its attempts to pander to its right-wing audience aren't this blatant. CNS seemed to recognize this, as the article didn't last long on its front page.
Strangely, CNS tried to play this same card a couple hours later, with an article by Melanie Hunter noting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is launching a hate crimes investigation into the shooting. While Hunter noted that the shootings occured at "a historic black church," she curiously didn't note that the suspect, Dylann Roof, is white.
Plus, it turns out that Sharpton and Lynch's suspicions were proven correct: Law enforcement officials said the shooter rose during a prayer service, declaring that he was there to kill black people.
The only other bit of what passes for original reportage at CNS on the Charleston shooting is another piece by Hunter, this time quoting a sermon given by one of the victims, Rev. Clementa Pinckney, in April after "Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, had been gunned down by former South Carolina police officer Michael Slager." Hunter didn't mention that Slager was white, or that Scott was running away from Slager at the time he was shot.
CNS' Sad, Lying Little Pitch For Cash Topic: CNSNews.com
A new Media Research Center donation page for CNSNews.com begins its sales pitch like this:
Americans deserve and demand the truth from their news media. Unfortunately, America's newsrooms are full of lies, bias, and even censorship. That's why CNSNews.com exists.
So that explains it! CNS exists so that the MRC can get in on some of that sweet, sweet action.
Since 1998, CNSNews.com has been THE alternative news source for individuals, news organizations, and broadcasters. As a member of the Media Research Center family of networks, CNSNews.com has evolved into one of the top sites on the Internet—reporting the news that the liberal media refuse to cover.
You mean like uncriticallyquoting right-wing religious figures at length? Or reprinting old film scripts? Not sure how any of that qualifies as "news." Anyway, continuing with the pitch:
We have produced one major scoop after another and are an indispensable online resource for news as it should be reported—accurate, balanced, and unfiltered. No wonder conservative talk show host Mark Levin says, "I read CNSNews.com every day, and you should too."
As its Duggar fiasco demonstrates, CNS' brand of journalism is anything but "accurate, balanced, and unfiltered." And Levin says that about CNS because the MRC pays him to say it.
The pitch concludes by declaring that CNS "rely solely on donations from conservatives to help us report the news the liberal media distort, slant, or censor." So CNS can do its own distortions, slants and censorship, of course.
It's a sad little pitch that denies reality -- and actually tells lies -- to make a grab for cash. But that's what the MRC does.
CNS Lets A Birther Write A Column Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center's creeping WND-ism continues in an eminently logical direction: CNSNews.com is giving space to a birther.
A June 11 CNS column features Herbert W. Titus and his law partner, William J. Olson, ranting against same-sex marriage and declaring that the Surpreme Court has no right to sit in judgment of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage because Sir William Blackstone said so, or something. CNS' bio for Titus highlights how he "taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School."
What CNS doesn't tell you about Herb Titus: He's a birther, and the birthers at WND love him.
In a 2009 WND article, Titus proclaimed that "Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen, even if he’s born in Hawaii," because he did not have two parents who were American citizens and that his "loyalties" lie with his Kenyan-born father. In a 2012 WND article, Titus asserted that natural born citizenship is "God-given" and that the concept "is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states" and "exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why ‘natural born citizenship’ is not defined in the Constitution."
Never mind that the Constitution makes any mention whatsoever about "loyalties," or that courts over the past century or so have routinely defined the term as applying to anyone born in the U.S. regardless of the parents' citizenship.
By contrast, Titus has been much less vocal about the eligibility status of Ted Cruz, whose political views align much closer to him than Obama's and who is also not eligible to be president under his extremely narrow definition of the term.
Religion Dispatches points out that Titus is an admirer of the late R.J. Rushdoony, the father of the far-right principle of Christian Reconstructionism -- a principle also followed by WND editor Joseph Farah.
This is the guy who CNS has deemed acceptable to write an opinon column for it.
CNS Managing Editor Devotes A 'News' Item To Repeating Movie Dialogue Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman's skewed idea of newsworthiness is not limited to pearls of anti-Muslim and anti-Obama wisdom from Franklin Graham. He now considers fiction to be news as well.
A June 8 CNS blog post by Chapman is headlined "John Wayne Schools Liberal Author on American Freedom and Giving Thanks to God."That gives the impression that Chapman will quoting Wayne saying something patriotic to respond to some modern-day "liberal author" who said something Chapman didn't like. Turns out that's not it at all -- Chapman is simply repeating dialogue from a film Wayne starred in. No, really:
The people who founded and built America did not rely on big government for a hand-out or demand “insurance for their old age,” but were rugged individualists, self-reliant, real “men” who looked up at the sky and said, “thanks God, we’ll take it from here,” said the actor John Wayne in the movie Without Reservations.
Wayne, himself a conservative, portrayed U.S. Marine Capt. “Rusty” Thomas in the highly successful 1946 film. In the movie, while traveling by train to California, liberal author “Kitty Kloch,” played by Claudette Colbert, expresses her optimism about a “new world” where the “advantages of citizenship” are shared by all and the “laissez-faire attitude” is cast aside.
John Wayne, “Rusty,” sets her straight.
That is, yes, followed by a copy-and-paste of the relevant dialogue from the film.
Chapman doesn't mention, of course, that "Without Reservations" is a romantic comedy in which Wayne and Colbert are the star attractions who resolve their differences and hook up at the end (in a 1946 way, of course).
Or that Colbert's character actually wants Wayne's character to star in the film adaptation of her book which suggests that the snippet of dialogue Chapman quoted is at least a little out of context.
Or that Wayne was simply repeating dialogue somebody else wrote for him (in this case, Andrew Solt); if he said them with such conviction that it melted Chapman's heart, that makes him nothing more than a very good actor.
Chapman also forgets that, despite insisting on telling us that this film was "highly successful" and pointing out that it had "a reported budget of $1,683,000, and it grossed $3,000,000 at the box office," there is not necessarily a direct relationship between a film's popularity and its quality, a truism Chapman's fellow travelers at the Media Research Center justdon'tget.
It seems Chapman is increasingly living in a fantasy world where he can't tell movies from reality. Yet, somehow, he's still the managing editor of a "news" operation.
Emily Richards writes in a July 13 CNSNews.com article:
Penny Starr channels a little manufactured outrage in a July 16 CNSNews.com 
The Media Research Center's creeping WND-ization continues by picking up WorldNetDaily's obsession with race.
A July 7 CNSNews.com 
Last month, CNSNews.com demonstrated the 
We know CNSNews.com is 
In a July 1 CNS 
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman's 
It's a new month, and you know what that means: Time for Ali Meyer and the rest of the CNSNews.com crew to 
When it came to covering the news of a white man shooting nine unarmed blacks in Charleston, S.C., CNSNews.com knew what it had to do: pander to the racial animosity of its right-wing readership by raising the specter of Al Sharpton.
A new Media Research Center 
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman's skewed idea of newsworthiness is not limited to 
