MRC: Believe Clinton's Accusers, Not Anita Hill Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long railed against Anita Hill for making sexual harassment allegations against conservative Clarence Thomas. The MRC's Tim Graham has long insinuated that she's a money-grubbing liar motivated to cash in on Thomas and advance her career as a law professor.
Hill plays an MRC pinata again in an Oct. 12 post by Nicholas Fondacaro attacking CBS for interviewing Hill in the wake of Donald Trump's vile misogyny (which the MRC is trying to bury). Fondacarohuffs that the CBS reporter "spoke as if it was a known fact that Thomas had somehow weaseled his way out of a deserved punishment. The CBS report failed mention Hill’s evolving story, or the testimony of other women which contradicted Hill’s accusations."
A few hours earlier, as it so happens, Graham was complaining that Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan was responding to Trump's collaboration with Breitbart News to bring out various Clinton accusers by calling it part of the "truth-averse" nature of Trump's campaign. Graham huffed:
This is how liberals dismiss these accusers. "Someone granted you an interview on TV, the rest of us ignored it or called you trailer trash, and now you're yesterday's news." That's called "settled, in one way or another," in the kangaroo court of the liberal media. The media don't believe in justice or dignity when the accused is Bill Clinton. It's "hate theater" to even make us think about what they've suffered.
Yet that's the exact same way Graham treats Hill. Apparently, it's OK to denigrate a victim if the person being accused of being the victimizer is conservative.
Furthering the double standard, Graham says nothing about the, ahem, evolving stories the alleged Clinton victims have told. Juanita Broaddrick, if you'll recall, testified in a sworn affidavit that Clinton did not assault her -- completely opposite to what she's claiming now.
And Kathy Shelton -- who was allegedly sexually assaulted by a man Hillary Clinton represented as a defense lawyer but who got off with a light sentence after irregularities in the case surfaced -- is claiming Clinton forced her to undergo a psychiatric examination the court record shows never took place.
Funny how only Anita Hill's story gets challenged by the MRC. But then, her story doesn't advance the MRC's agenda.
NEW ARTICLE: How Does An Ex-Soviet Bloc Spymaster Endorse Trump? Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily fave and ex-spymaster Ion Mihai Pacepa (and his co-author, Ronald Rychlak) strangely has nothing to say about Trump's cozy ties to Russia and its ex-Soviet spymaster leader Vladimir Putin. Read more >>
MRC's War on Fact-Checking Continues Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center remains as anti-fact as ever. Witness Curtis Houck's whining about fact-checking after the Oct. 9 presidential debate:
NewsBusters has documented extensively over the past year Politifact's blatant bias and selective fact-checking of liberals, but the divide kicked into high gear on Sunday night in the second presidential debate as, using previous posts, it examined only six statements by Democrat Hillary Clinton versus 15 statements by Republican Donald Trump.
Not surprisingly, Politifact ruled that, of the five Clinton statements, all five were either “true,” “mostly true” or “half true” with a sixth about coal and her energy policy given no review but instead directed readers to a post about her thoughts on coal “in context.”
As for Trump, they looked at 15 claims and deemed one “full flop,” seven “false” or “mostly false” (with a ninth all but labeled so), one “half true,” two “mostly true,” one “true,” and two not given a ruling.
Diligent readers would notice that there was nothing examined about what Clinton said concerning her e-mail scandal, Wall Street speeches, or Trump supporters being a “basket of deplorables,” but then again, this is Politifact we’re dealing with.
Moving to Trump, the litany of statement Politifact sprinted to debunk was, to say the least, long and extensive.
Diligent readers will also notice that Houck never does his own fact-checking of Clinton in order to prove PolitiFact wrong -- he simply rattles off a list of right-wing talking points. He's also pushing the claim that Clinton lied just as much as Trump during the debate -- which is simply not true. As the Washington Post noted, Clinton "on occasion made a factual misstep, but it didn’t even compare to Trump’s long list of exaggerations."
Yet Houck concludes his post by insisting he's not trying to draw false equivalence:
One can make the argument that Trump may say more things that are factually inaccurate, but a fact-checking site claiming to be dedicated to holding both sites accountable proved on Sunday night that they are either incapable of doing so or don’t care to.
Houck still doesn't want to concede that Trump tells significantly more falsehoods than Clinton does. When one side tells more falsehoods than the other, the record must reflect that. Houck insists that PolitiFact should be "holding both sites accountable," but in pointing out that Trump lies more, it's actually reflecting the record. Houck doesn't want to admit that -- or even the basic, indisputable premise that Trump does, indeed, tell more falsehoods. He must defend Trump, after all.
The MRC's war on fact-checkers continued with Tom Blumer ranting about debate fact-checks that were too pedantic for his taste and stuck with facts rather than spinning things for Trump.
Blumer concludes by stating: "We can expect more 'Stupid Fact Checks' to appear on a nearly daily basis between now and Election Day. To echo the press's disingenuous whine, we can expect them to occur so quickly that no one can possibly keep up with all of them. " Of course, to Blumer, any fact-check that points out how much of a liar Trump is is, by definition, "stupid."
WND Columnists Love Obnoxious, Sexually Predatory White Males Topic: WorldNetDaily
In condordance with its love of Donald Trump, WorldNetDaily is moving from merely excusing his vile misogyny to endorsing the behavior that makes it possible.
Kent Bailey -- who has cheered Trump's appeal to white males as a "tall, blond and Nordic 'warrior extraordinaire'" and insisted that "diminutive, pudgy, non-athletic and cerebral" Hillary Clinton just can't handle Trump, "who drives a golf ball 300 yards and eats nails for breakfast" -- devoted his Oct. 9 WND column to opining about something he invented called "Politically Correct Psychosis," which he claims "emerges when the Marxist, liberal and progressivist crypto-religious worldview is challenged, and it is especially prevalent in highly educated, upper middle class, Caucasian populations in New York, Florida, and California." A subset of this, apparently, is the idea of "toxic white masculinity," and Bailey links this in with his own brand of Trump-esque misogyny:
Today, feminist women and feminized liberal men are determined to not only rewrite European and American history, but the history of the species as well! They believe they can completely take over the country from the “toxic white men” who founded it and furnished it with virtually every invention in sight from the clock to the electric light, the Ford Model T, the Saturn rocket and, of course, the Internet – thanks to Al Gore. Read the works of historian Daniel Boorstein, and see who are the great discoverers, creators and developers of today’s amazing world – a virtual extravaganza of “toxic white men.”
7) What is this “toxic white male” thing all about, anyway? The answer-strained and fabricated notions about the literal “equality” of the sexes. Marxist liberals and their foot-soldier feminists are determined to produce equality in every nook and cranny of American culture even when it conflicts with human nature and objective reality. Thus, after 70 years of failure to usurp male influence and power, the new approach is to belittle, confuse, demean and ultimately disenfranchise men with the help of the media, the feminized universities and the Democratic Party.
If you cannot compete with men or take their place by legitimate means, then just bitch them to death, reject and shame them out of existence. This is basically how tattletale sisters have dealt with their annoying brothers since the dawn of time, and this is exactly what Hillary and her crowd are attempting with the ultimate toxic white male – Donald Trump.
So we can guess that Bailey is totally down with how Trump demeans women.
By contrast, Wayne Allyn Root dispenses with the pseudoscience of "paleospsychology" that Bailey hides behind and goes totally unhinged in his Oct. 10 WND column, sneering at the "fancy Ivy League degrees, media credentials and political titles" who predicted Trump was through and gave a full-throated endorsement of Trump's "savage" misogyny:
The media have it all wrong. The GOP establishment don’t get it. Trump isn’t a politician who has to abide by the rules. Trump is one big middle finger to all the people in power – to “business as usual.” He is our middle finger. He is our caveman. He is our savage. He is our animal.
So he doesn’t have to be well-mannered. Trump gets bonus points for being a savage. If he makes ladies in gowns faint … if he makes liberals vomit … if he makes crooked politicians tremble … then he’s our guy!
All of this bad stuff, all of these secretly recorded videos, they just make the story better. Trump isn’t a man; he is a folk hero. He’s Paul Bunyan. He’s the Loch Ness Monster. He’s Sir William Wallace, the hero warrior of “Braveheart.”
Yes, Trump’s an animal, a savage – but he’s our animal. He’s our savage. He’s a tough guy fighting viciously for us. And if he’s fighting “dirty”? Great. It’s about time we had someone on our side who brings a bazooka to a gun fight, instead of a knife.
Yes, any other politician would have stepped down, or backed down after that secretly recorded video was released. Trump DOUBLED DOWN. Instead of playing doormat or shrinking violet to Hillary at the debate, even after the release of that terrible video, Trump promised to put her in prison. Are you kidding me? This guy has balls in a nation filled with neutered men.
Trump wants to send Hillary to prison? Trump mocks her when she compares herself to Abraham Lincoln? Trump asks her why she doesn’t put some of her $250 million fortune in the race? Trump calls her behavior disgraceful? That was all music to our ears. This is our guy. Thank God we have a savage on our side!
Root concludes by going into full-throated nihilism:
So here’s my message to the liberals, the mainstream media and the GOP establishment:
Keep practicing premature prognostication. Stay delusional. Keep lying to yourself that Hillary is going to win. Stay over-confidant. We’re going to wipe that smug look off your faces on Nov. 8.
And keep the dirty tricks coming. Take it from the author of “Angry White Male” – you’re making us angrier. You’re creating a feeding frenzy. The more you attack him, the more you motivate us.
Release more videotapes – we dare you.
Show Trump using the “F” word. Release a Trump sex tape. Show Trump talking about how he owns all the crooked politicians. Prove Trump doesn’t pay taxes to our corrupt government. We love it. You’re just feeding the beast. You’re making the legend of Trump even bigger. You’re making our folk hero 10 feet tall. You’re creating a monster.
BRING IT ON. Let’s see the best you got. We don’t care. We’re coming to burn D.C. down. We’ve got our pitchforks. We’ve got our Brexit attitude on. More importantly, we’ve got our long, strong, vicious, savage middle finger …
We’ve got Donald J. Trump.
Of course, it's so much easier to destroy than to build, and Root talks only of destroying, of burning D.C. down. That makes him -- and Trump -- no better than a vandal. But he's too busy trying to burn down the country to notice.
CNS Reporter Spins Hard to Whitewash Trump's Vile Misogyny Topic: CNSNews.com
When it came to reporting on Donald Trump's vile misogyny in a video released last last week, CNSNews.com -- the "news" division of the Trump defenders at the Media Resarch Center -- first covered it only with Associated Press articles. That's not unusual for CNS, which posts no original content on weekends, though you'd think that with a hotly contested presidential election it might try to act like the news organization it claims to be and have some weekend staffing.
But with the new week, CNS was following the lead of its parent -- the only original articles it posted on Trump's vile remarks was from those defending him or spinning what he said.
An Oct. 10 article by Melanie Hunter featured right-wing strategist Mary Matalin doing some heavy spin by insisting that Trump merely had a "private conversation about sex he’s not getting," while the Democratic Party stood behind President Bill Clinton during his sex scandal with a White House intern. Hunter quotes others in her article critizing Trump, but the fact that she made Matalin's defense the lead means that's what the CNS spin will be on Trump -- presumably as dictated by editor in chief Terry Jeffrey, managing editor Michael W. Chapman or even MRC chief Brent Bozell himself.
Later that day, Hunter followed up with another article reinforcing the official CNS spin, this one uncritically quoting Mike Pence, Trump's vice presidential candidate, spinning even harder by saying that "while he doesn’t condone what GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said in controversial remarks that that surfaced over the weekend, he believes in forgiveness and grace."
In both articles, Hunter rather benignly whitewashes the extent of Trump's vile misogyny, not bothering to quote any of Trump's actual words but, rather, merely claiming he was caught on tape "bragging about kissing and groping women."
It looks like Hunter had her marching orders: hide the truth and spin for Trump. And that's exactly what she did. It makes her a good right-wing apparatchik, but not that good -- or honest -- of a reporter.
WND Pushes False Anti-Hillary Story Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh breathlessly writes in an Oct. 11 WorldNetDaily article:
There long has been evidence of Hillary Clinton’s sense of entitlement – the stories of her ordering Secret Service officers to carry her bags, her unabashed demands for hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, her insistence on specific travel accommodations and much more.
Now there’s evidence of exactly what she thinks of the average American who works hard and pays taxes to support the Washington establishment.
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans,” wrote her campaign manager, John Podesta, in an email.
Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs
The email has surfaced in a WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails. Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson noted the email, sent by Podesta on April 19, 2015, was a discussion about what “talking points Hillary should use in framing her candidacy for president in order to get a good head start.”
“I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,” he wrote. “I think if she doesn’t say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.”
Her director of communications, Jennifer Palmieri, responded, “Truth.”
“To emphasize,” Watson wrote, “John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign guru, is in black and white admitting that Hillary Clinton hates everyday Americans. This is huge.”
In fact, that's not true at all. As Media Matters explains, there is context to that email that Infowars -- the Alex Jones conspiracy website -- and Unruh ignore. The reference was to the "everyday Americans" slogan that Clinton used when she first launched her presidential campaign; when Podesta says "I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans," he's saying she hates the phrase in relation to her campaign.
Watson's original article has apparently been removed from the Infowars website and sister site Prison Planet, presumably because it's utterly false. As of this writing, Unruh's article is still live.
Unruh and WND are getting what they deserve for considering Infowars to be a credible source of information.
We know WND will publish any anti-Hillary claim it thinks it can get away with, regardless of its factual accuracy. It's already had to remove at least one false article from its website -- never apologizing for publishing that false information -- and it has published lies about Hillary it won't retract.
MRC Pretends Trump Didn't Actually Threaten to Jail Hillary Topic: Media Research Center
Donald Trump made a highly problematic statement during Sunday night's presidential debate, asserting that if elected he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's emails (despite the fact they have already been investigated). When Clinton noted that it's "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law of our country," Trump retorted, "Because you'd be in jail."
To most observers, that looked like a plan for malicious prosecution and jailing of a political opponent, something usually seen in countries with authoritarian dictatorships. Which means the Media Research Center had to work extra hard to spin that away.
Nicholas Fondacaro went first, complaining that CNN 's Wolf Blitzer "falsely" said that Trump is "going to put her in jail if he’s elected president of the United States," even though it's not an unfair reading of Trump's words. Fondacaro tried to spin even more pedantically:
CNN’s Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger described Trump’s comment as Nixonian and falsely quoted Trump as saying ""I’d put her in jail."" Borger also took exception with Trump calling Clinton a liar and claimed that he called Clinton “the devil multiple times,” even though he only called her the devil once. Borger and the panel went on to argue that these statements about Clinton are turning Trump off to voters, even though people don’t think she’s trust worthy.
Clay Waters followed by ranting in an Oct. 11 post that the New York Times "went way overboard fear-mongering over a quip Donald Trump made to Hillary Clinton during their debate Sunday night in “Pledge to Put Clinton in Jail Gets Experts Thinking of ‘Tin-Pot Dictators.’” Waters groused: " the media (and some Republicans as well as Democrats) aggressively misrepresented it to liken Trump to a dictator. One wonders where this concern about careful rhetoric and the rule of law was when the left howled for war crimes tribunals for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney."
Waters then dismissed Trump's "jail" threat as merely "a throwaway line at a debate," then turned to right-wing writer Noth Rothman who insisted that Trump's threat was a "quip" that "was pretty unremarkable."
Reminder: Trump Is WND's Candidate Topic: WorldNetDaily
If ever we needed a reminder that Donald Trump was the kind of person WorldNetDaily wanted to run for president, Joseph Farah provided one in his Oct. 6 column. He starts out his column of advice for Trump for the then-upcoming debate by stagting:
I suppose I could call this column in to the campaign managers for Donald Trump.
Most of them have been friends of mine for between 10 and 30 years.
Which means the Trump campaign comes by its birtherism (and disowning of same after it stopped working as a political attack) and Clinton derangement honestly -- they're just as obsessed as Farah, Jerome Corsi and WND are.
MRC, As Expected, Bashes 'Pushy' Debate Moderators Topic: Media Research Center
It was all but guaranteed that the Media Research Center would not like the performance of the moderators at Sunday's presidential debate, because they do not work for Fox News. And so, the MRC commenced with the grim task of denouncing ABC's Martha Raddatz and CNN's Anderson Cooper.
Scott Whitlock kicked things off by going a little sexist, calling Raddatz "pushy" in the headline of his post-debate item. He complained that "Raddatz frequently interrupted Donald Trump and sparred with the businessman over media bias and fairness during Sunday’s debate.
In his friendly Fox Business appearance in which he also joined Trump in the mud, MRC chief Brent Bozell huffed of Raddatz: "She showed utter contempt for Donald Trump on a national stage. She dismissed his answers. She even argued with him about his answers. She actually entered into the debate Candy Crowley-style. So I don't blame Donald Trump at all for saying it was a one-on-three debate." Bozell didn't explain why a man who talked in such a vile manner about women that even Bozell himself conceded was "disgusting" did not deserved to be treated with the "utter contempt" he claims Raddatz showed him.
While this utterly predictable right-wing bashing of Raddatz was going on, the MRC's Kyle Drennen was unironically complaining that "the liberal media predictably celebrated the moderator’s biased performance."
Rich Noyes followed his boss to Fox Business for a softball appearance, where he similarly complained about Raddatz and Cooper: "Yeah, it was about 2-1. You know, about 20-something interruptions, you know some of those might be multiple interactions, to fewer than a dozen for Hillary Clinton. But it was more than interruptions. You know, they were challenging Donald Trump. They were pressing him in a very adversarial way. They asked her tough questions but not in that challenging adversarial way." He also expressed his anger at Cooper for pushing Trump to answer questions about the vile video: "Anderson Cooper's questions at the beginning of the debate about this inside-- Access Hollywood tape where he pressed him over and over and over again to get the answer he wanted."
Yes, how dare Cooper press Trump to answer a question about something Noyes would be praising Cooper for doing were the subject not a Republican.
Remember: The main goal of the MRC's criticism of debate moderators is not to advance the cause of journalism but to advance the agenda of the Republican Party -- no matter how vile the Republican presidential candidate is. That's why, as the Daily Beast's John Avlon memorably explained to the MRC's Tim Graham (in such a direct manner that the MRC won't let its readers sees it), the MRC has no credibility on such things.
WND Censors Trump's Threat to Jail Clinton Topic: WorldNetDaily
Paul Bremmer (who works in marketing and is not an actual reporter, though he was an intern at the Media Research Center) writes in an Oct. 9 WorldNetDaily article:
Donald Trump made a bold move during the first half hour of Sunday night’s presidential debate, declaring that if he is elected, he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
“I didn’t think I was going to say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception,” Trump said to his opponent’s face. “There has never been anything like it. We’re going to have a special prosecutor.”
Trump’s declaration came in response to Clinton’s call for Trump to apologize. The Democratic nominee noted Trump never apologized for his past remarks about the family of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, Judge Gonzalo Curiel of Indiana or the “racist lie” that President Obama was not born in the United States.
“He owes the president an apology, he owes the country an apology, and I want him to take responsibility for his actions and his words,” Clinton said.
Trump responded first by saying Clinton is the one who owes Obama an apology, because her 2008 presidential campaign first looked into whether Obama was eligible to be president. Then he pivoted to the ubiquitous email scandal.
“But when you talk about apology, I think the one you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 emails that you deleted and you acid washed, and then the two boxes of emails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing,” Trump charged.
Trump said people he speaks to around the country are furious about Clinton’s destruction of her emails – after those emails had been subpoenaed, no less.
“So we’re going to get a special prosecutor and we’re going to look into it, because you know what?” Trump asked. “People have been destroyed, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. It’s a disgrace, and honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.”
As you'd expect from an article by someone who works in marketing, there's some news missing here -- namely, what happened after Bremmer cut off Trump. Here's the exchange that followed shortly after the excerpt Bremmer wrote about:
CLINTON: ... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I'd never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we're going to really make lives better for people.
So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump -- you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we'll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is -- it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
TRUMP: Because you'd be in jail.
Apparently, a candidate threatening to throw his opponent in jail if elected was not news to Bremmer, even if it was to pretty much every other actual news reporter. Either he didn't bother to even put it in, or it was removed from the article by someone else later in the editorial process.
Regardless, WND censored news that made its preferred candidate look bad.
MRC Joins Trump In The Mud: Handwaves Vile Remarks, Brings In The Clintons Topic: Media Research Center
Like WorldNetDaily, the Trump supporters at the Media Research Center were loath to to acknowledge Donald Trump's taped vile misogyny. NewsBusters, which surrently serves as the front door to much of the MRC's content, didn't acknowledge it until more than a day after the remarks were made public -- and then only in a post by Matthew Balan complaining that "purported excerpts from some of Hillary Clinton's speeches to corporate audiences" didn't get as much news coverage.
And on cue, Rich Noyes trotted out an article complaining that "ABC, CBS and NBC offered relentless coverage of the just-disclosed audio of Donald Trump in 2005 talking about his attempted sexual conquests" while there was comparitively scant coverage of Clinton's "hacked e-mails" with the purported speech excerpts. Noyes didn't explain why he thought the two vastly different stories deserved the exact same amount of media coverage, but he did have a snazzy bar graph:
Then, Jack Coleman previewed the MRC's defense for Trump -- the Clinton Equivocation -- in a post criticizing NBO's Bill Maher for being vulgar about Trump's vulgar remarks:
That really happened -- the guy who was president grabbing them by the p****?! That it did -- and his name was Bill Clinton. By bizarre coincidence, he's married to the Democrats' nominee for president, Trump's opponent. And it was Hillary Clinton who led the pushback to destroy the reputations of women who accused her husband of grabbing them wherever and whenever the impulse seized him. One of the women was named Monica Lewinsky and she now devotes her life to a crusade against bullying. And back in the '90s, it was the Clintons and their hacks who bullied her the worst.
Curtis Houck tried to muddy the issue with the patented MRC "The liberal media reported on X but completely ignored [thing the MRC wants covered to advance its partisan agenda]" in a post complaining about the lack of coverage of some obscure Clinton campaign aide tweeting an F-bomb at Trump. Curiously, Houck censored all mention of the fact that said obscure aide apologized for his "inappropriate" language shortly afterwards.
But leave it to MRC chief Brent Bozell to simultaneously join Trump in the gutter and go on a conspiracy theory tear. In another friendly appearance on Fox Business, Bozell rants about the excess of coverage of Trump's remarks by echoing Trump and going there on 20-year-old tales about Bioll Clinton's sex life:
BOZELL: If you're going to object, let's object this way. We did a little bit of analysis, and what is more important: whatever Donald Trump said, which is disgusting, or the allegation, the eminently believable allegation, that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick and Hillary Clinton subsequently threatened Juanita Broaddrick?
You cannot argue Donald Trump is more important, yet in 17 years, you did not get as much coverage of Juanita Broaddrick as you got on Donald Trump in 48 hours. Here's another one, here's another number -- you're going to like this one. 103 minutes given about Donald Trump this weekend. How much time was given to Paula Jones when she filed a lawsuit that said that the President of the United States took his pants down in front of her and told her to kiss it? 103 minutes on Donald Trump, 16 seconds, Paula Jones.
That little tidbit came from the end of Noyes' comparative-coverage item. The Jones coverage Bozell and Noyes is from February 1994 -- 22 years ago, making this the ultimate apples-and-oranges comparison. Tim Graham helpfully repeats the complaint in a post issued after Bozell's appearance, in which he also touches on his longtime obsession with potraying Anita Hill as a liar about Clarence Thomas and that she made her accusations only to advance her career: "Why was there no outburst of outrage [about Jones in 1994] from the same media which made the unsubstantiated Anita Hill a heroine in 1991 and turned sexual harassment into a grave political sin?"
The conspiracy theory came when Bozell asserted that NBC was sitting on the Trump tape to damage Trump just before the election:
BOZELL: It's an insult to the intelligence to suggest that they just found this. This is October surprise time, and this won't be last one. There will be more that will come out of it, and for them to say they just came across this when this has been in the record, when they've had access to it since the very beginning, really is an insulting statement. No, they've had it, they did it deliberately, the timing was deliberate, and this is -- by the way, I expected this, this was going to happen, and more will come out.
Bozell doesn't mention that, as the Washington Post explained, NBC's entertainment division, producer of "Access Hollywood," the show where Trump's remarks were uncovered, is separate from its news division. While NBC hasn't said when its news division first found out about the Trump clip, the news division did say it was in the midst of vetting the clip when a tipster alerted a Post reporter to its existence, which then forced NBC to release it.
Bozell's reference of more vulgar things from Trump to come out is an apparent reference to more off-color things Trump has allegedly said in outtakes from the NBC show "The Apprentice." But NBC doesn't own the rights to the show, which was produced by prolific reality TV producer Mark Burnett. He's married to Roma Downey, bets know for her acting role on conservative-fave show "Touched By an Angel," and they run a production company that specializes in religious-themed films. The MRC has defended Burnett and Downey and even touted the religious background of the actor who played Jesus in one Burnett-Downey production.
Variety reports that Burnett has been curiously silent about Trump throughout the campaign and notes that standard employment contracts for his shows include a $5 million fine for leaking material about them.
So, no, there does not appear to be a NBC-led conspiracy to destroy Trump. That won't keep Bozell from continuing to claim there is, however.
WND Dithers, Then Excuses Trump's Vile Misogyny Topic: WorldNetDaily
After the news of Donald Trump's vile sexual remarks broke on Oct. 7, WorldNetDaily first responded only with an article it stole from the Washington Post that it didn't even place in its front-page breaking-news carousel. What did make the carousel, however, were twoarticles trying to portray Bill Clinton as a sexual predator -- a blatant attempt to distract from the news of the day.
It was almost a day before WND posted an original article about it, focusing on Trump's apology, baselessly portraying him as "humbled." For at least part of that day, however, WND promoted that article in its carousel without a photo, leaving just a headline in a black box:
When it came time for today's WND columnists to opine, though, all who wrote were willing to overlook Trump endorsing sexual assault. WND editor Joseph Farah went the boys-will-be-boys route, insisting that Trump is just a "cad," and quickly going the shame route (on voters, not Trump):
But choosing not to vote for Trump because of his shameless misbehavior 11 years ago, caught on a covert video conveniently and coincidentally withheld until one month before Election Day, is not smart. It’s not the right thing to do for your country, for our economy, for our national security, for the righteous revolt Trump has led this year against the permanent, bipartisan political establishment that has already come dangerously close to destroying America’s heritage of liberty, justice and prosperity.
Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore
If I thought Trump were in this race for his ego only, it might be different. I don’t. I think he genuinely wants to do something for his country. And I think he may be the only person who can do that at this time – and certainly he’s our only choice with a month left I the race.
That’s the choice we have. And guess what? I think the choice is crystal clear.
So, what’s it going to be America? Vote for a cad or a criminal?
Count on my vote for the cad.
Farah is also unclear on who the Democratic candidate is, asserting: "It’s sad to say, but your choice boils down to sending a cad to the White House or returning a rapist, one who was actually impeached in connection with a series of serial assaults and lying under oath about them." Farah doesn't mention that Trump has been credibly accused of rape.
Trump true believer Gina Loudon, meanwhile, dismissed the whole thing as mere "locker-room-style banter" and is mad not that Trump said such vile things, but that more will be coming out because "the Democrats have turned to the page in the leftist playbook that tells them to dig up dirt and assassinate the character of their opponents because they must distract from the issues." Loudon has bought Trump's alleged apology hook, line and sinker because she insists he's now a better man:
Times like these are when Donald Trump shines, and he now has a unique opportunity to turn this into a win.
Mr. Trump has a chance to connect even further with the American people on a personal level because of this controversy. Every American voter has said something in private that they regret. If he gives a contrite apology and talks about his transformation on the campaign trail, he can turn these attacks into a big win.
Pamela Geller, meanwhile, not only handwaves Trump's "naughty" words ("This is much ado about nothing. It’s how guys talk"), she -- and we are not making this up -- praised Trump's "decorum" in his sleazy conversation, and went full Clinton Equivocation:
The uproar over Trump’s remarks is manufactured and opportunistic outrage. For example, I was actually surprised by the decorum in Trump’s conversation. He was respectful of the married woman’s refusal. He was surprised that if you’re famous, you can get all the sex you want. He was unashamedly heterosexual in his desires. Though he said he wanted to grab p—-, he didn’t force someone’s head “down,” a la Bill Clinton. He appreciates “beautiful” and wants to kiss her face, not have her immediately perform oral sex a la Bill Clinton, and he wants to be pleasing to her with Tic Tacs for his breath – very considerate. A pass, a kiss, is not rape. For that, you’d have to ask Juanita Broaddrick.
Geller conludes with a dab of Hillary derangement: "It’s the end of us – the end of freedom – if Hillary Clinton becomes president."
CNSNews.com keeps doing the unemployment shuffle, with Susan Jones' article on September's job numbers fixated as usual on the labor force participation rate, which is meaningless as an indicator of employment since most of the people who aren't employed are retired or students.
That's something Jones once again fails to explicitly acknowledge in her reporting. This time, though, she serves up a bland dictionary definition: "The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutionalized population, age 16 or older, who are either working or actively seeking work. People who are no longer looking for work, for whatever reason -- retirement, school, family, or they've just given up -- are not participating in the labor force."
Farther down in her article, Jones offers up further elaboration:
[Federal Reserve Chair Janet] Yellen told Congress last month that the participation rate is feeling "significant downward pressure" from the aging of the population, as more and more Baby Boomers retire and leave the labor force.
"Aging of the population maybe one factor," Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) told Yellen at the hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. "The other factor is that unemployment is coming down, not for a good reason, but for the wrong reason -- namely, that there's a frustrated workforce out there that's completely given up looking for work."
But this doesn't appear until the 13th paragraph of her article, while the second paragraph asserts that "94,184,000 Americans were not in the labor force in September, 207,000 fewer than in August, and the nation's labor force participation rate" without elaboration.
Is it too much to ask for Jones and CNS to explain the truth about the labor force participation rate in a straightforward manner early in the article, when it counts? Apparently so.
WND -- Which Loves Likening Obama to Hitler -- Is Shocked Some Are Likening Trump to Hitler Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone, let alone five writers published by the Washington Post over nine months, would liken Donald Trump to Hitler. Managing editor David Kupelian huffs in an Oct. 5 piece: "What can one say to a newspaper that repeatedly compares a gutsy, outspoken billionaire businessman-turned-presidential candidate to a mass-murdering monster?"
Well, one could start by posing this question to Kupelian: What can one say to a website that repeatedly compares the first black presidential candidate to a mass-murdering monster?
Because that's exactly what Kupelian's WND did to Barack Obama.
In 2008, WND gave ample space to Hilmar von Campe, a former Hitler Youth who apparently didn't forget what he learned about the Nazis' Big Lie technique in likening Obama to Hitler:
"Socialist Hitler destroyed free society in a few months. Socialist Obama is close to his steppingstone." -- Oct. 28, 2008
"Germany at the beginning of the ’30s was in deep economic trouble with about 6 million unemployed. Hitler became the savior for millions of miserable people who adored the likeable deceiver but did not have the slightest idea what he was up to. The same is true for America now in the worst economic and financial crisis ever. Obama appears as a savior without people analyzing his character and record." -- Nov. 15, 2008
"There was another Nazi organization that had the same task as all other institutions, namely to keep people under control and influence their thinking. It was the Service to Work (Arbeitsdienst). Young men had to serve half a year before entering into military service. It seems that Obama likes this Nazi feature because he has proposed, in addition to the idea of a civilian national security force, a plan to create a national community service program. ... His plans point to where he wants to lead the American nation: onto the same road Germany took in 1933. Americans, do you want to go in that direction?" -- Nov. 25, 2008
WND even defended von Campe's smears by asserting that "As a person who survived the nightmare of Adolf Hitler, von Campe believes he carries a sober responsibility to warn Americans how quickly free society can be destroyed through socialist ideology."
WND has published numerous other Obama-Nazi comparisons, as well as columns defending them.
Kupelian also quoted right-wing blogger Jeff Dunetz denouncing the Trump-Hilter comparisons. Dunetz noted that unlike Hitler, Trump hasn't "forced people to tattoo numbers on their arms," "murdered people, cremated their remains and buried them in mass graves," "wrote a book called 'Mein Kampf' in which he spoke of his hatred toward Jews and previewed his 'final solution,'" "conducted horrible, painful medical experimentation on humans," nor did he "round up people he doesn’t like, force them into box cars like cattle and deliver them to concentration camps." Dunetz added: "Until there is evidence of the above, any comparison of Donald Trump to Hitler and/or the Nazis is not only false, inappropriate, and an example of careless writing."
Guess what, Mr. Kupelian? None of those things apply to Obama either, yet you and your published numerous instances of likening Obama to Hitler and other Nazis. Which makes you an utter moral hypocrite for denouncing others for engaging in behavior you condoned and promoted.
One final consideration. There were at least 16 different plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler, including most famously “Operation Valkyrie” (the so-called “20 July Plot”), which was made into a blockbuster movie starring Tom Cruise as the heroic German army officer, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg. Even the revered Lutheran pastor and theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was executed by German authorities for his role in this particular plot. The people who attempted to assassinate Hitler – to slay a psychopathic monster, to stop a genocide, to end a terrible war – are rightly regarded as patriots and heroes.
So, what does this say about the Washington Post – and others in the “mainstream media” who consider themselves America’s arbiters of truth – continually comparing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with Hitler? Does such “journalism” legitimize threats and violent attacks on Trump and his supporters?
If someone, God forbid – convinced he is a modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler – were to shoot Donald Trump, would the Washington Post deserve any of the blame?
I say yes.
Does that mean we could assign some of the blame if some would-be modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler, were to shoot Obama? We say yes -- just like we say WND has some actual blame for Anders Breivik's massacre of dozens in Norway (Breivik cites WND six times in his manifesto) and Dylann Roof's massacre of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church (he parroted WND's racially charged, pro-apartheid rhetoric).
To The Lazy MRC, Rob Reiner Will Always Be 'Meathead' Topic: Media Research Center
Rob Reiner has done a lot of things in the nearly 40 years since his acting stint on "All In the Family" -- namely, being the director of popular and acclaimed films -- but that doesn't matter to the Media Research Center. It's much easier for them to go for thecheap, lazyinsult and call him "Meathead" every time he say something they don't like.
The latest to lazily insult Reiner is Callista Ring, who complains that Reiner accurately notes that there's a "serious strain of racism" that runs through the followers ot Donald Trump. Her headline references "Meathead Rob Reiner" and and huffs, "Like Hillary Clinton, Rob Reiner would toss an awful lot of Americans into a 'basket of deplorables.' Or in Meathead’s case a bunker of Archies."
Ring doesn't really bother to disprove Reiner, instead whining that Reiner was "reeking of liberal elitism" and writing things like "What a surprise, another liberal accusing people of racism simply for not agreeing with him."
That's kneejerk right-wing ranting that's just as lazy as insisting on calling Reiner by the name a character he hasn't played in 40 years.