WND Promotes Only Polls Where Trump Is Leading Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has gotten interested in presidential poills over the last week. But not the ones -- that would be nearly every one -- that show Donald Trump losing; it cares only about the ones that show Trump winning, which would be about three of them.
WND's Bob Unruh uses an Oct. 19 article to tout the Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll, "described as the 'most accurate poll in recent presidential elections,'" which showed Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton by one percentage point.
Unruh doesn't mention that those calling the IBD/TIPP poll the "most accurate" are pretty much limited to IBD and TIPP (FiveThirtyEight.com noted that the poll was among the most accurate in the 2012 election, but it doesn't equate to accurate performance this year), or that IBD is a right-wing newspaper with an interest in showing the Republican winning the election.
While the subhead of Unruh's article mentions "Wildly different results in establishment media surveys," the article itself doesn't address the issue, obscuring the fact that thte IBD/TIPP poll is an outlier in presidential polling this year; most other polls show Clinton ahead by various lengths.
The Huffington Post notes that IBD/TIPP"s outlier numbers show that "seems to be the victim of survey error."
Unruh's article touted two other polls that showed Trump ahead of or tied with Clinton: Rasmussen and Los Angeles Times/USC Dornsife. But those have issues as well, according to the Huffington Post: Rasmussen historically leans Republican, and LA Times/Dornsife's results "can be easily explained by its unique methodology ― it asks 'What is the percent chance that if you were to vote, you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else?' instead of a traditional 'Who would you vote for?' question."
Unruh followed that with an Oct. 23 article touting a "shock poll" with Trump tied with Clinton -- but he's again citing IBD/TIPP, Rasmussen and LA Times/Dornsife.Unruh admits these are "outlier" polls, but also cites the Drudge Report, from which WND apparently stole its "shock poll" headline.
WND's Garth Kant, in an attempt to boost Trump's claim that polls not showing him winning are "phony," tried to throw shade on those polls in an article claiming that they "all sampled significantly more Democrats than Republicans. But, according to the most recent national survey on voter allegiances, conducted by Gallup just after the 2014 midterm elections, more Americans actually side with the Republicans than the Democratic."
In fact, as the Federalist explains, Democrats have traditionally outnumbered Republicans, and "it’s unwise to assume a pollster is biased because its sample included more Democrats than Republicans."
Kant also claimed that "another answer to the mysterious difference in the results of the ABC / Washington Post and IBD polls" is the contents of a stolen WikiLeaks email from the Clinotn campaign that discussed how to oversample polls, to which he added, "The ABC / Washington Post poll showing a 12 point Clinton lead did, in fact, sample 9 percent more Democrats than Republicans."
But that email was not discussing media election polls; as the Washington Post explains, it was an attempt to poll the Clinton campaign's messaging, and the call to oversample certain groups was an attempt to get a large enough sample to more accurately gauge a response to the messaging.
The Federalist notes that "by and large, it’s usually better to assume that results averaged across multiple polls from a variety of polling organizations are probably pointed in the right direction." But those polls don't show Trump winning, so Unruh, Kant and WND would rather attack them and promote the outliers.
UPDATE: Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall debunks the idea that IBD/TIPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012.
MRC: Media 'Collusion' Doesn't Require Actual Collusion Topic: Media Research Center
To see just how far down the rabbit hole the Media Research Center is on the idea that "the media" is colluding against Donald Trump, just read this Oct. 16 post by Nicholas Fondacaro.
In it, he rages at CNN's Brian Stelter for dismissing the idea of media collusion as "not just false, it's ludicrous and it's damaging." He was joined by the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan, who pointed out that Nobody is sitting in a room with each other and planning to, you know, do anything evil to a candidate. It's just not the case." Sullivan added: "I mean, there are media outlets, there are newspapers, there are cable TV stations, there are network news, but there is no, sort of, little group called 'the media' that gets together and decides to do terrible things to Donald Trump. How do you prove that? It's a reality check."
Fondacaro responded that equating groupthink to collusion:
The strawman argument presented by Sullivan is just about as absurd as she believes Trump’s is about the media. The media doesn’t need to meet like a cabal to push an agenda. There are members of the media who admit that the industry is dominated by liberals. And the fact that most of them see the world through a similar prism means their coverage is colored how they perceive it.
So collusion doesn't require actual collusion, just people who think the same way? How ridiculous.
Fondacaro's insistence that there is a monolithic "media" shows how little he knows about how the media works -- shocking since he's supposed to be a media researcher.
The New York Times is not the Washington Post is not the New York Post is not the Los Angeles Times is not CBS is not CNN is not the Omaha World-Herald. Lumping all newspapers and TV into "the media," as Fondacaro insists on doing (and which the MRC is paying to do) simply ignores reality. There are many different owners and separate newsrooms, and even ridiculously assuming that every journalist has the exact same training that somehow automatically turns them into liberal elites who think exactly alike, the odds of the kind of lockstep groupthink Fondacaro and the MRC insist takes place is small indeed.
As further evidence of this alleged collusion, Fondacaro cites "Media Research Center data which shows how lopsided recent coverage of the candidates had been, linking to an MRC post complaining that "a tape showing Trump making inappropriate remarks" received much more coverage than "the Wikileaks release of multiple years’ worth of e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s staff." But that so-called research reflects the MRC's own lazy bias: it covers only the three TV network and completely ignores the cable news networks.
We're willing to bet that even Fox News, the MRC's favorite media outlet, gave a healthy amount of time to Trump's vile misogyny -- er, "inappropriate remarks." But as we've pointed out, the MRC gibe Fox News a pass because 1) it has the media bias the MRC prefers, and 2) MRC chief Brent Bozell and other MRC officials regularly appear on it, and they won't jeopardize their main source of media exposure.
Fondacaro then attacked Stelter:
Before the first presidential debate he demanded that Trump receive harsher treatment than Clinton from the moderator. He even attacked Associated Press reporters for exposing connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department. Obviously, Stelter’s claim that the liberal media does not aid the Clinton campaign is also “ludicrous,” or maybe he’s trying to land a spot in Clinton’s next media party.
Inn fact, according to the link Fondacaro supplied (to an earlier post he wrote), Stelter did not "demand that Trump receive harsher treatment than Clinton" during a debate; he argued that debate moderators should check facts during a debate, a process that would hurt Trump because he lies exponentially more than Clinton does.
As far as Fondacaro's snide pot shot that Stelter is just "trying to land a spot in Clinton’s next media party" goes: Does he think Stelter will get better treatment there than the MRC gave debate moderator (and handpicked choice) Chris Wallace?
This time, WND is petitioning Donald Trump -- if elected president, of course -- to name a special prosecutor to "INVESTIGATE HILLARY CLINTON'S CRIMES." Never mind, of course, that he already pledged to do that, making WND's petition redundant at best and, given Trump's current status in the polls, a complete waste of time at worst.
The petition itself is a mess, deviating into a morass of Trump-esque tangents. Take this section, for instance:
Whereas, when during the second debate Hillary Clinton's said it was "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," Trump quipped, "… because you’d be in jail";
Whereas, in response, the left has hysterically complained that "threatening to jail a political opponent is anti-democratic and anti-American," with leftwing Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe (who in 2008 was a judicial adviser to the Obama presidential campaign) claiming, "some of the political leaders who’ve jailed their political opponents have been Hugo Chávez, Recep Erdoğan, Robert Mugabe, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet and, of course, Vladimir Putin";
Whereas, Trump obviously did not threaten to investigate Clinton because she is a political opponent, but because she has blatantly violated U.S. espionage laws, mishandled top-secret information, destroyed government files and obstructed justice – criminal misconduct that has nothing to do with being a political adversary of Trump’s;
Whereas, it is, in reality, Democrats, not Republicans, who routinely target political adversaries for prison – such as the Obama administration's criminal prosecution of high-profile Obama critic Dinesh D’Souza (for which the Justice Department demanded a severe jail sentence, which the judge declined to impose) for a campaign-finance violation of the petty sort that the DOJ routinely allows to be settled by a civil fine; also Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the anti-Muslim video the Obama administration falsely and scandalously blamed for the Benghazi massacre, was subjected to a scapegoat prosecution and imprisonment (under the guise of a supervised-release violation) intended to bolster Obama and Clinton's shameful "blame the video" narrative;
The petition concludes, in all-caps bold, "THIS MAY BE AMERICA’S LAST CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE WE ARE TRULY A NATION WITH EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW!" This from the same people who think D'Souza and Nakoula should have been given a pass for their crimes.
As of this writing, the petition claims 13,913 signatures, but as usual, WND offers no independent verification of that number. Given WND's utter lack of credibility, there's no reason to believe it's providing an accurate count.
CNS Promotes False Claim That Hillary Gave Up Nuclear Secret In Debate Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones writes in an Oct. 21 CNSNews.com article:
Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Thursday refused to answer a reporter's question about a possible intelligence disclosure by Democrat Hillary Clinton.
At Wednesday's final presidential debate, Democrat Hillary Clinton accused Republican Donald Trump of being "very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons."
According to Clinton, "The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There's about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."
CNN's veteran Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr read Clinton's quote to Secretary Carter at a news conference on Thursday, then asked him, "Is it classified to discuss the nuclear launch timeframe? It's either classified or it's not."
"I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer your first part because it is cast in terms of the ongoing presidential campaign, and I said repeatedly I'm not going to answer questions in that context. So, not going to answer on that one," Carter said.
If Jones had bothered to do any research at all before writing her article, she would know that there was an answer to whether Hillary made a "possible intelligence disclosure" during the debate by mentioning the nuclear launch window: no.
As Snopes details, Fopreign Policy magazine wrote about the four-minute window in an article two months ago. Snopes also notes that the window has been the subject of Internet chatter for years and cited a nuclear security expert pointing out that it's not classified information.
That information is not hard to find, yet Jones show no apparent interest in finding it. After all, that would have interfered with her Hillary smear job.
WND's Fringe Doc Concern-Trolls Over Bill Clinton's Alleged Illegitimate Son Topic: WorldNetDaily
Beware of a doctor who channels Jerome Corsi.
We've noted how Jane Orient of the far-right-fringe Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has followed in Corsi's footsteps in promoting conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton's health. Now Orient is embracing a non-medical Clinton conspiracy theory promoted by Corsi: that Danney Williams is Bill Clinton's illegitimate son.
In an Oct. 17 WorldNetDaily column framed as concern-trolling over why Hillary is "denying or 'banishing' her own biracial child – or stepchild," Orient regurgitates Corsi's hit job right down to pretending there really isn't a political motive in the issue coming up now and insisting the DNA test performed in 1999 cleared Clinton:
But who will believe the testimony of a poor black woman who sold her body to earn money to feed her children and even served time in jail? Or that of other lower-class black folks? Who will trust the childhood memories of a biracial man who spent a lot of time in foster care? In contrast, women’s reports of being touched “inappropriately” by Donald Trump decades ago, surfacing for the first time just prior to the election, are given credence and endless media coverage. Is that because the women are white, or because they are attacking a Republican?
Apparently, nobody has asked Hillary about Danney. Perhaps she would give her standard answer: “I don’t recall.”
Williams is asking Bill Clinton for a blood sample for forensic paternity testing. It is claimed that “DNA testing” has already disproved the relationship. However, the test used to show that the semen on Monica Lewinsky’s dress was probably Bill Clinton’s is reportedly not accurate for ruling out paternity.
Is the question about Clinton’s paternity politically motivated? The timing of Alex Jones’ interview probably is. But Danney Williams has been asking for recognition for decades, and has had a Facebook page for two years – and nobody much cared.
If Bill Clinton knows he is not Danney’s father, he could destroy the credibility of the “alt-right” media by giving a blood sample. If he is Danney’s father, the right thing to do is to acknowledge his fine son and five precious black grandchildren. Was he not said to be the country’s “first black president”?
Hillary says she’s a champion for all children, and women, and minorities, and she wants to be the president of all Americans. Does she have a problem with being stepmother to Danney Williams?
The AAPS has long had antipathy toward the Clintons, deviating from merely opposing health care reform in the 1990s to pontificating on the death of Vince Foster.
Orient's conspiracy-mongering may be good for WND, but probably less so for anyone who's seeking medical advice from her. Who wants a doctor that sounds like Jerome Corsi?
MRC Embraces Trump's Empty 'Rigged Media' Crusade Topic: Media Research Center
Donald Trump's complaint that the media is "rigged" has always been an empty complaint -- heck, even Fox News' Greg Gutfield, no liberal he, admits that Trump has received much more free media than any other presidential candidate and has benefited greatly from it. Trump is simply making the claim now because he's losing because of his own mistakes and he refuses to take responsibility for it.
The Media Research Center used to believe that about Trump -- it used to complain how NBC created the candidate Trump by airing "The Apprentice" -- until it flipped to such a magnitude that it's now criticizing others for making that exact same argument. Similarly, the MRC wouldn't recognize Trump's complaints of media bias against Fox News; it was only when he focused on the MRC's pre-approved targets that it paid attention.
Brent Bozell and crew almost certainly know that Trump's "rigged media" crusade, like much of the rest of the campaign's claimed ideological leanings, is empty -- after all, Bozell wouldn't support Trump in the primaries because he doesn't "walk with" conservatives. There's no reason to believe Trump's heart has changed, but because he's now saying some of the things a Republican candidate is supposed to say, the MRC will blindly play along.
And because Trump is now giving the "liberal media bias" meme the biggest megaphone it's ever had -- again, regardless of the fact that Trump only cares about it because he's losing and needs someone to blame -- the MRC will happily ride Trump's coattails.
Thus, Bozell and Tim Graham's Oct. 19 column, headlined "Trump's Right: The Media Is Rigged." Bozell and Graham engage in their usual tired anti-media ranting:
A charge of leftist media bias this election cycle is about as ludicrous as claiming that the sun rises in the east. All these WikiLeaks emails give firsthand evidence of the so-called "objective" press acting like badly disguised Clinton campaign workers. If this sort of fraud were illegal, these reporters would be headed for Sing Sing.
What's false, ludicrous and damaging to democracy is the idea that this sort of journalistic betrayal is ethical and permissible.
What is the evidence they present of this? A few minor things. First, a report that Democratic strategist and then-CNN contributor Donna Brazile allegedly forwared a question from an upcoming CNN-hosted candidate forum to Hillary Clinton, as revealed in the stolen WikiLeaks emails. The veracity of the email has never been examined, and Brazile has denied doing any such thing -- and the question itself was a fairly standard query about the death penalty that any competent candidate would have a position staked out on, not any sort of sneaky gotcha question -- yet Bozell and Graham huff that Brazile was "a CNN contributor rigging a CNN event,"adding, "If Corey Lewandowski were feeding town-hall questions to Donald Trump, we can guess Stelter would have a heart attack on air."
If the latter were true, Bozell and Graham would likely be praising Lewandowski -- who, unlike Brazile at the time, remains on the payroll of a presidential campaign -- for his cunning and willingness to stick it to the "liberal media."
The second example Bozell and Graham cite is the Washington Post's breaking the news of the tape o' vile misogyny from Trump, and it goes full Clinton Equivocation on that: "So what do you call the Washington Post publishing the Trump sex-talk tape in six hours, whereas it sat on the Paula Jones story for months? What's absurd is denying that liberal bias is in full corrosive effect."
Bozell and Graham conveniently forget that Paula Jones' allegations were being shopped by Clinton's political enemies, not preserved on a network-recorded videotape, so there was much skepticism about her motivation.
Bozell and Graham also complain about how "ABC's George Stephanopoulos harshly interviewed 'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer" over his Clinton Foundation hit job, with behind-the-scenes assistance from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Bozell and Graham apparently wanted Schweizer to be able to present his attacks without challenged -- you know, like Bozell gets to do every time he appears on Fox News.
But as we've noted, even Bozell's own organization has conceded that Schweizer's Schweizer is a conservative activist who wrote his book as a partisan attack against Clinton and, as he himself appears to admit to WorldNetDaily, has no actual proof to support his allegations. That leaves him open to hard questioning, and apparently Schweizer couldn't handle it.
Bozell and Graham even complain about WikiLeaks revelations that some reporters worked with the Clinton campaign to clear quotes, but we're willing to bet that the MRC's own "news" division, CNSNews.com, does that sort of thing pretty regularly. The authors don't bring up CNS' supposed journalistic standards as a rebuke -- perhaps because there may not be any.
Bozell and Graham howl that "Wikileaks is exposing the media-Democrat collusion that is utterly routine in every election cycle ," but don't discuss the media-Trump collusion happening right now at Breitbart News. They cannot name any major "liberal media" figure who moved straight from that job to running a political campaign, like Breitbart's Steve Bannon did for Trump's campaign -- because there hasn't been one.
Trump is parroting the MRC's message, and so Bozell and the MRC will parrot him -- that much is obvious. Pointing that out, though, tends to get one smeared as a drunk by Graham.
Appropriately enough, WorldNetDaily's Oct. 18 article was written by an anonymous reporter:
Is Hillary Clinton a “sex freak” who has paid fixers to arrange sex between her and other men and women?
That’s according to a National Enquirer headline story splashed across the Drudge Report Tuesday. The tabloid magazine claims to be in contact with a “former Clinton family operative who is sensationally breaking ranks with his one-time bosses.”
The magazine claims the “fixer” was hired by the Clintons, via a Hollywood executive, to hide their scandals.
“I arranged a meeting for Hillary and a woman in an exclusive Beverly Hills hotel,” the man allegedly told the tabloid. “She had come to the studio to see the filming of a movie in 1994.
“While I was there, I helped her slip out of a back exit for a one-on-one session with the other woman. It was made to look casual, leaving quietly [rather than] being caught up in the melee … but really it was for something presumably more sordid.”
The man claimed he also helped cover up an alleged affair between Hillary and Vince Foster.
WND doesn't mention that the "fixer" the Enquirer claims did all this for Hillary has chosen to remain anonymous -- which completely undermines the story's legitimacy.
WND also censors one very important fact regarding this story: The Enquirer is very cozy with the Trump campaign. According to the Washington Post, Trump and chief executive David Pecker are very close, Trump has actually written articles for the Enquirer, and the Enquirer has endorsed Trump.
Add to that the Enquirer's less-than-stellar journalistic reputation, and there's no real reason to anyone to believe this story. WND is not helping its massive credibility issues by promoting this story.
MRC Clinton Equivocation Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been hitting the Clinton Equivocation hard this election season as it tries to deflect ever-more-sleazy accusations against Donald Trump by insisting that a Clinton did it first and worse.
One MRC researcher with a particular Clinton Equivocation fixation is Brad Wilmouth. On Oct. 11 he complained:
As the broadcast network evening newscasts on Monday recalled both the tape from 2005 revealing Donald Trump speaking lewdly about his behavior toward women, and Trump inviting women who have accused Bill Clinton of either sexual harrassment or assault to Sunday's debate, there was an obvious double standard in the willingness to use the term "sexual assault" with regard to Trump's behavior, while Clinton's behavior was alluded to in a more vague and toned down manner.
While the CBS Evening News called Trump's behavior "sexual assault," but Clinton's more violent behavior was labeled as "extramarital affairs" on the same show, ABC's World News Tonight and the NBC Nightly News each used a clip of debate moderator Anderson Cooper charging that Trump "sexually assaulted" women, but in both news casts used more vague terms like "wrongdoing" and "abused," or using words like "accusers" and "accused," giving little detail on what the Clintons were being accused of.
But Wilmouth still wasn't satisfied that the media was sufficiently dragging Bill Clinton down to Trump's level. So he recycled his complaint for an Oct. 21 post:
Since a number of women have gone public with charges that Donald Trump groped or forceably kissed them in past encounters, there has been a pattern of the broadcast networks being more likely to use the words "sexual assault" in referring to Trump's behavior, while using more toned down or vague wording to describe accusations against former President Bill Clinton of behavior that is at least as severe. This double standard has especially recurred several times over the past week on ABC's World News Tonight.
Between them, ABC correspondents Tom Llamas and David Wright have used forms of the words "sexual assault" or "assault" five times across three shows since last Thursday. But, on all five occasions when similar accusations against Clinton were referenced, Llamas avoided the word "assault," using words like "sex scandals," "sexual misconduct," and "accusers."
Yes, Wilmouth is spending what appears to be a substantial amount of time obsessing over whether Trump is being accused too much of engaging in "sexual assault,"and not enough time wondering why Trump's behavior should be compared to someone who is not on the ballot.
Considering the foregoing, the idea that there is a very substantial contingent of the American electorate still willing to elect Clinton is sobering at best, and horrifying at worst. When we look at Hillary Clinton at rallies or debates, leering into the cameras with bug eyes and Jack Nicholson’s frozen Joker smirk, I believe we are looking into the face of sheer madness.
That aside, Clinton’s lack of comeliness is probably the least of her liabilities. Despite all the efforts of the press, at this point the empirical evidence should speak for itself. If it does not – and barring widespread election fraud – we will know the answer in November. Then it will be apparent that Americans’ capacity for self-delusion has overcome their basic instinct for self-preservation.
Hillary Clinton is a user. No, to my knowledge she doesn’t do illegal drugs. Her drug of choice is political power – and it should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that she has and will use anything or anyone to get it. The best example is her 41-year marriage to a charismatic serial philanderer, who used his charm to become president of the United States and now is attempting to use that charm to secure power again through his dutifully addicted wife.
We’re caught in a terrible impasse, a choice we must make between a woman who wants to be commander in chief and leader of the free world, a woman who polls show over 60 percent of other women believe to be untrustworthy and untruthful – and a man who never held public office and who has a penchant for fiery outbursts of accusations, name calling, bragging promises and flimsy outlines of impossible-sounding programs.
It’s clear that no matter what sleaze surrounding Hillary Clinton and her gang of criminals is uncovered, the march is on to elect her president, bringing into the White House with her: radical Black Lives Matter, Farrakhan, Sharpton and New Black Panthers types, self-hating Jew and Nazi collaborator billionaire George Soros, more Muslims like her top aide and girlfriend, Huma Abedin, radical gay, lesbian and transgender activists, socialists, communists, atheists, anarchists, domestic terrorists and anyone who wants, in President Obama’s equally evil wake, to destroy the nation and refashion it in their image.
The angst displayed by the worse – Hillary– and Michelle Obama over Trump’s disgusting remarks bragging about his ability to seduce women, caught on tape 11 years ago, was truly over the top in light of more recent events. Didn’t Michelle and her husband gratefully accept help from the man who had sex with an intern in the Oval Office? Can you imagine what would happen to a Republican president who did such a thing? Can you imagine what would happen to a college president or the CEO of a corporation who did such a thing? It’s disgusting!
Make no mistake about it. If you are a conservative Christian and Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, she will declare war on certain aspects of your faith. Your religious liberties will be targeted, and your biblical beliefs will be branded disturbing, if not downright dangerous.
Do not be deceived.
She has made herself perfectly clear on this in the recent past, and we deny this is to our own peril.
I can absolutely say, without reserve, that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a fraud from the top of her head to the soles of her feet. The way she portrays herself, in contrast to who she really is, are two different revelations.
FRAUD, n. [L. fraus.] Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; an attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means, particularly deception in contracts, or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth.
From her boastful (criminal) record to her contrived and fabricated support, with her answers and comments, it is not hard to detect that she is a fraud.
Much of Wednesday’s debate was spent on her accusing her opponent of crimes of which she is guilty.
For one thing, Hillary Clinton seems to have pulled together a coalition of, shall we say kindly, “non-traditional” voters?
people on the government dole
those who detest the military
those who sacrifice children to the god of convenience
It’s an odd mix, you have to admit. It’s hard to imagine a future of peaceful coexistence between some of these groups, let alone self-governance.
And maybe that’s just the point. Do you think Hillary Clinton believes in self-governance – the concept unique to the American constitutional system?
But it’s certainly interesting that she doesn’t mind throwing stones while clearly living in a big glass menagerie of malcontents and drawing more than her share of support from some who could accurately and fairly called “deplorables.”
CNS' Starr Attempts A False Planned Parenthood Smear, And Fails Topic: CNSNews.com
An Oct. 17 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr carries the provocative headline: "Planned Parenthood Retweets Article: Founder Margaret Sanger Just Another Racist American."
Except that the article in question doesn't say that all, no matter how much Starr hints it does. She can only hint at that because she knows it doesn't.
The article in question that Starr is attacking Planned Parenthood for having retweeted comes from the Rewire site, and it debunks the right-wing idea that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was motivated by racism and shows how anti-abortion activists use that false image of Sanger to shame black women. The part of thte article that Starr and CNS presumably think portrays Sanger as a "racist American" -- a phrase that appears nowhere in the article -- is a statement that "The United States is rooted in anti-Blackness" and most major corporations have some form of racism in their history, so "any argument that Black women in America should disavow Planned Parenthood because of some history of anti-Blackness would necessarily require that Black women disavow the very country in which we live."
It's quite a stretch to glean "Sanger is a racist" out of that -- especially since, as even Starr concedes, the bulk of the article makes the argument that Sanger was not motivated by racism.
Curiously, she doesn't dispute the article's main contention -- perhaps because she knows her employer has engaged in promoting those very same false narratives. As we've documented, CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, used these false and misleading quotes just last year to spread lies about Sanger.
So, with its wildly misleading headline and a refusal to challenge what the disputed article actually says, it seems Starr's attempt to smear Planned Parenthood is a failure.
Non-Shocker: MRC Loved Chris Wallace As Debate Moderator, Because Fox News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's praise for Fox News' Chris Wallace's performance as moderator of the third presidential debate is utterly unsurprising. The fix was in from the beginning -- more specifically, since 2007, when Bozell demanded that Wallace be allowed to host a debate specifially because he would be Republican-friendly.
When Wallace was named a moderator, the MRC's Tim Graham cheered "the first nod to Fox News." The MRC had a curious hands-off policy on Wallace in the runup to his debate. While it cranked out working-the-ref articles detailing what it claimed to be the most "liberal" moments of earlier debate moderators Lester Holt, Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz, as well as mocking Matt Lauer's purported lack of gravitas before a presidential forum he moderated (Elaine Quijano was exempt because, according to Graham, "The MRC doesn't have a thick file on Elaine Quijano"), it did no such treatment for Wallace despite his extensive record. In fact, Graham insisted that Wallace wouldn't skew right: "Wallace won't want to look like a Trump booster, and the liberal media noted some tough questions in the primaries. The Washington Post in March hailed how Wallace set a 'bear trap' for Trump in a budget question."
When the earlier debates were over, MRC chief Brent Bozell rushed to attack the moderators. After Wallace's debate, Bozell was practically slobbering over the guy, giving him an "A+ PERFECT" grade:
Chris Wallace killed it tonight as moderator. He was perfectly fair to both, asking the exact same number of tough questions to both sides (eight to each). He asked the questions that his colleagues at CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC refused to ask in the three prior presidential and vice presidential debates. His questions were substantive, relevant, issue-based, and focused on the records and quotes of the two candidates. He also remembered the first rule of debate moderating: GET OUT OF THE WAY. He was a total pro in every way, allowing the candidates to debate each other and explain themselves. I hope Fox’s competitors took notes. This is how it's done!
Bozell offered nothing to back this up, just like he never bothered to back up any of his attacks on the other moderators.
He didn't have to, because none of his post-debate statements were based on actual performace. Wallace got slobbering praise because he works for Fox News, where Bozell and other MRC staffers appear regularly. The other moderators were bashed because they don't work for Fox and because bashing them furthers the MRC anti-media agenda.
So dedicated is the MRC to protecting Wallace that Graham went after one commentator who deviated from the "near-universal praise" for him.Graham, like Bozell, is ignoring that Wallace was not balanced and did put a right-wingspin on some questions.
That analysis would seem to bolster John Ziegler's argument that the MRC cares more about fundraising than serious analysis of media bias. Of course, noting such things only gets you smeared as a drunk by Graham.
WND's Kinchlow Demonstrates 'The Danger of A Biased Media,' But Not How He Thinks Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ben Kinchlow's Oct. 16 WorldNetDaily column is titled "The danger of a biased media," in which he complained: "In an 'unbiased' media, why is it permissible to report allegations of improper behavior against one candidate but not another?"
He then cites right-wing author Ronald Kessler's attacks on Hillary Clinton, based on anonymous claims. Kinchlow touts Kessler as "the Washington Post’s investigative reporter," but he hasn't worked for the Post for decades; his most recent journalism gig was for Newsmax, where he was anythingbutunbiased.
Which highlights the major flaw in Kinchlow's analysis. He complains:
If you think most of what you see on TV, read in the print media or hear on radio is there without conscious design, then the free press – our “unbiased media” – have been extraordinarily successful in fooling a lot of people.
But he doesn't seem to understand that his column is published by one of the most biased "news" organizations on the planet. He should read WND's website sometime to see how many smear jobs they perpetuate against Hillary vs. actual reporting on Donald Trump's vile misogyny.
As for the media "fooling a lot of people," we need only to go to Kinchlow's column of the previous week, in which he once again goes birther on Obama:
We must introduce, and face the repetition of, a concept that led to the election of Barack Obama as president. It must be clearly understood that an objective view of Obama’s qualifications for president reveals the qualifications simply do not exist. There is nothing in his past, in terms of achievement, that qualified him for the office he now holds.
America wanted to prove to others, and itself, that it was not “racist.” This was the perfect opportunity to show that true equality had at last arrived in America. A relatively handsome, young, college-educated (no serious research done on that issue), articulate black male (no serious research into his birth circumstances) was the candidate.
In fact, Obama has released two birth certificates, verified as authentic by Hawaii state officials.
Kinchlow might want to address the danger of the highly biased media that has been extraordinarily successful in fooling him -- while also publishing him -- before he complains about the "unbiased media."
NEW ARTICLE: The Return of the Clinton Equivocation Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center gives Donald Trump a pass on his increasingly sleazy behavior by insisting that a Clinton did it first and worse. Read more >>
MRC's Graham Smears MRC Critic As Drunk Topic: Media Research Center
It seems the Media Research Center may be even worse at taking criticism than WorldNetDaily 's JosephFarah.
MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham spent an Oct. 17 post lashing out at conservative activist John Ziegler for pointing out at Mediaite that Donald Trump's claim of media bias is the desperate defense of a terrible candidate, obscuring what he considers genuine media bias, and that the MRC is simply trying to cash in by latching on to it because it "fundraises off of bad media coverage and wouldn’t exist if the problem ever really got solved." Mostly, Graham portrays Ziegler as drunk for saying it by making "Breathalyzer" references. Commence the whining, Tim:
There's nothing laughable in the charge that the problem of media bias against Trump isn't "real." You may argue Trump is not a movement conservative (many did during the primaries and many still do). But the reality of media bias against Trump surrounds anyone who follows the political media right now. Ziegler then launches into arrogant boasting about how he takes media bias too seriously to face "fake fighters against bias" like the "conservative" "Media Research Center."
Dear John: We don't know what we did to deserve this Breathalyzer-worthy rant. Many of us have spent most of our careers building the case against liberal media bias. There's nothing "fake" about it. You don't provide one "fake" example. If we are somehow insincere to fight the good fight for 30 years insincerely to keep the money coming in -- then can't it just be easily turned around on your career?
It's understandable that Ziegler is upset that many in the conservative media lined up with Trump in the primaries. It might even be understandable that Ziegler is mad that the MRC is still identifying how the media proves daily it's seeking a Trump defeat in the general election. Apparently we should somehow be taking two months off and knitting Reagan quilts. But it's offensive to insist anyone who disagrees with your tactics is whoring themselves out for (non)profit.
But it's undeniable that the MRC's embrace of Trump's media bias claims has been selective, depending on the target. As we've documented, the MRC wouldn't touch Trump's accusations of media bias in 2015 -- but then, they were targeted at Fox News, where Brent Bozell has a weekly slot on "Hannity" and he and other MRC employeees make regular appearances. It's only when Trump started targeting the so-called "liberal media" -- coincindentially, the MRC's main target -- in the wake of bad news about his vile misogyny that the MRC bothered to echo them.
Also remember the MRC's big flip-flop: It was originally bashing the "liberal media" for being too soft on Trump.
But Graham is too busy smearing Ziegler as an alcoholic to address the substance of his criticism, that Trump didn't push the "crooked media" line until women stepped forward with tales of his boorish behavior, and "Trump’s complaints are not based in truth, but in desperation. He is saying whatever might sound good at the moment to his base of fanatical future subscribers to whatever media venture he will create after he loses."Graham certainly knows this as well. But as long as he's saying the right words about a "crooked media," Graham won't bother to acknowledge that Trump's just playing to the base to save his political skin and not making an intellectual argument.
That appears to be because Graham knows he's right about the MRC being opportunistic. If the MRC was sincerely interested in media, wouldn't it have taken all bias complaints by Trump seriously? After all, accusing Fox News of media bias wouldn't rake in the donations that accusations against its pretedermined targets generate.
To see that just requires applied logic, not a chemically altered state. The fact that Graham can't, or won't, see the difference between the two tells you all you need to know about the MRC.
WND's Corsi Hurling Mud At Hillary, To Nobody's Surprise Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has been desperately trying to distract its readers from bad news about Donald Trump and his woman problems by trying to sling as much mud at Hillary Clinton as it can. You know, business as usual.
WND is flinging so much mud, in fact, that we don't have the time to rebut it all beyond pointing out that it should be assumed that WND has no credibility and because of that, nobody takes their so-called reporting seriously.
It is important, however, to document the atrocities to show the continuation of WND's downward spiral. We've already noted WND's false reporting on Hillary's "everyday Americans" remark (which, despite being utterly false, is still live at WND) and its pushing of the discredited story of Bill Clinton's purportedly illegitimate son.
Let's take a quick look at the mud Clinton-hater Jerome Corsi is flinging these days.
Corsi has been really desperately trying to insist that Hillary, not Trump, is the one with all the questionable ties to Russia. So much so, in fact, that he haswrittenfourarticles on the subject. In the first article, he tries to whitewash one of the Trump campaign's most damning connections -- that former campaign manager Paul Manafort received millions as a lobbyist for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine by insisting that "opponents have failed to document he ever received $12.7 million in approximately 22 previously undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party as supposedly documented by ''black ledger' entries revealed by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau."
But Corsi has so discredited himself over the years -- we remember all too well his bogus journey to Kenya to get fake documents and his Obama ring fail -- that he simply cannot be believed.
The "Bill Clinton's illegitmate son" story is his as well -- he's working with charlatan filmmaker Joel Gilbert despite the fact that Gilbert burned him badly on the Obama ring thing. He has a new story up announcing that said "illegitimate son," Danney Williams, will file a paternity suit against Bill Clinton. Corsi is continuing to deny that a 1999 DNA test was meaningful.
Corsi is censoring the obviously political motivations behind Williams, who is almost surely being exploited by pro-Trump forces like Gilbert. The statement announcing the paternity suit is hosted at the website for Citizens for Trump, which claims to be a "grassroots" group with the goal to "assist the Trump for President campaign in both winning the nomination for the GOP, and the general election in November of 2016."
Corsi also promoted the appearance of Malik Obama, President Obama's half-brother, at Wednesday's debate as a guest of Trump. Gilbert has his sleazy hand in this as well. Meanwhile, Right Wing Watch has documented how WND, led by Corsi, flipped from bashing Malik Obama as a filthy Muslim to joining Gilbert in exploiting him.
On top of all this transparently hackish anti-Clinton work, there's the fact that Corsi's anti-Hillary book is tanking so badly (it's currently No. 11,812 at Amazon, an abysmal ranking for a current-events book pegged to the presidential election) that WND is resorting to begging readers to buy it in bulk, and it's clear this election year is a bust for Corsi.
UPDATE: We forgot to note that Corsi has been maintaining another bit of Clinton-hating slime: recruiting poliitically driven doctors who have never examined Hillary Clinton to make various alarming armchair diagnoses of Hillary Clinton, such as Parkinson's disease. Corsi published twomore articles just this week.