WND Flip-Flops on Trying to Influence Electoral College Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 10 WorldNetDaily article by Art Moore expresses concern that "more than 1 million people have signed a petition urging members of the Electoral College to vote for [Hillary Clinton] when they meet next month." He spends part of the article and defending it against a campaign to replace with the popular vote (which Hillary won).
WND previously had no problem with people messing with the Electoral College when election results didn't go its way -- in fact, it led a campaign to do just that.
A December 2008 article announced that "WND announced a historic first in its quest to establish Obama’s qualifications for office – a similar FedEx letter drive directed at individual electors" to one WND previously used to target the Supreme Court. The issue: birtherism, of course. The article continues:
As WND has reported, there remain serious questions as to whether Obama is “a natural born citizen,” as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. While he claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961, two Obama family members have told WND they were present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
Further, Obama has steadfastly refused to release publicly his full birth certificate that would identify the hospital of his birth, the attending physician and other details. Instead, the campaign posted a document purporting to be a birth certificate devoid of these details. It has also come under fire as a possible forgery.
The article stated that "WND was able to track down addresses for all 538 electors. With the new 'FedEx the Electoral College' program, you can reach all of them with a one-page pre-written letter, with your name and address attached, delivered overnight for less than it would cost you to FedEx one member – if you had the address." That cost was $10.95 -- one of WND's many attempts to skim money off its readers to send letters in bulk to politicians regarding certain issues despite never offering any evidence that the letters had any effect.
WND editor Joseph Farah wrote a column promoting the campaign, declaring that "unless we’re going to live under an honor system in the future, one that relies solely on what a candidate says about his own eligibility, there is no reason to believe Obama is. There is simply no valid evidence to prove it, and there is plenty to raise doubts."
A later WND article indicated that just 3,653 readers paid WND for the privilege, meaning WND grossed $40,000 on the effort.
In other words, WND is now looking disdainfully at something it happily did eight years ago. Expect a lot more of this behavior.
MRC Plays Dumb About Trump's Anti-LGBT Connections Topic: Media Research Center
In a Nov. 11 Media Research Center post, Sarah Stites dismissed reports of an increase in suicides by transgender youth as probably not true and tried to downplay the idea that a Donald Trump presidency will be any sort of threat to the LGBT community as president:
This anxiety-ridden reaction to Trump’s ascendency is concerning, especially in consideration of the fact that the president-elect has not voiced strongly conservative views on LGBT issues. In fact, in an April 21 interview with Matt Lauer, Trump recommended leaving the bathroom situation “the way it is.” "People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate,” he explained, “There has been so little trouble.” When Lauer pressed, “So if Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and want to use the bathroom, you’d be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses?” Trump’s answer was telling: “That is correct.”
Based on his historically unpredictable policy positions, it is probably safe to assume that Trump is no solid social conservative. Additionally, he has discussed his open employment of LGBT people and has voiced no ill will against them. If transgender youth have anything to worry about regarding America’s 45th president, it should be his caprice—not his ideology.
While Trump himself may not care about LGBT issues, he has surrounded himself with people who care about them very much, and not in a positive way.
The head of domestic policy for Trump's transition team, Ken Blackwell of the right-wing Familiy Research Council, believes that being gay is no different from being a kleptomaniac or arsonist and is a "lifestyle" that "can be changed." He has also compared same-sex couples to farm animals.
Trump also named several anti-gay leaders to a campaign advisory council, including Michele Bachmann, James Dobson and Robert Jeffress.
Trump's apparent disinterest in LGBT issues may very well mean that the anti-gay leaders riding his coattails will have free rein to impose their agenda. Stites, however, thinks LGBT people haven't been paying attention to that and is simply playing dumb about the threat.
Earlier this year, we noted how WorldNetDaily tried to perpetuate the conspiracy theory that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murderered. It seems some aren't quite willing to let go of the conspiracy just yet.
Craige McMillan began his Oct. 21 WND column by asserting, "At least now we know why Justice Scalia was murdered. Democrats do not want a repeat of Bush/Gore in the Florida recounts if they can somehow move a close election to the U.S. Supreme Court."
McMillan engages in the usual anti-media ranting expected from an avid Trump supporter and Hillary-hater -- Democrats are plotting to steal the election, the media is claiming polls show Hillary ahead in order to discourage Republican turnout -- before hopping to this:
In the event you don’t think that Scalia was murdered, what did the autopsy report show? That’s your answer, isn’t it? A U.S. Supreme Court justice dies unexpectedly, at a private retreat owned and operated by a prior administration’s “fix it” man, and there is no attempt to determine the cause of death?
As we noted, the owner of the "private retreat" where Scalia died was likely showing his appreciation for the Supreme Court not taking up a case involving his company by letting Scalia stay there for free (which, somehow, McMillan doesn't find scandalous). Further, there was no evidence of foul play, Scalia had heart trouble and high blood pressure among other health problems, and his family felt no need to conduct an autopsy.
McMillan shows his lack of interest in facts later in his column when he rants, "Get a clue, America! The war on poverty has failed. The trillions spent fighting poverty have enriched only the ruling class now encamped in Washington, D.C., the richest ZIP code in the nation."
in fact, there are dozens of ZIP codes in the District of Columbia. And as the Washington Post reports, none of the five "richest" ZIP codes, as ranked by average income, are in the District of Columbia; three are in New York City, one's in Miami Beach, and one is in Wilmington, Del. All of those have an average income of more than $1 million; by contrast, the ZIP code with the highest income in the District of Columbia tops out at just $191,818.
McMillian is a WND columnist, after all, so why wouldn't he peddle falsehoods and promote conspiracy theories?
CNS Keeps Up Post-Election Stenography for Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
As we've documented, CNSNews.com thinks that simply regurgitating whatever Donald Trump has to say is the same thing as "reporting." With Trtump's victory, the stenography continues.
A Nov. 9 article by Susan Jones repeats Trum's victory speech, uncritically claiming that "He offered reassurance to racial, ethnic and religious minorities, promising that his movement will be 'comprised of people from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people -- and serve the people it will. Working together we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream[']." Jones, who loves to inject snide editorial comments about President Obama and other things she doesn't agree with into her "news" articles, didn't see fit to note that Trump's claim of "reassurance" directly contradicts the rhetoric of his campaign, in which he insulted racial, ethnic and religious minorities (Muslims and Mexicans among them).
CNS Patrick Goodenough did slightly better in a Nov. 9 article noting Trump's post-election claim that "We will get along with all other nations, willing to get along with us." But instead of noting that it diverges from the much harsher tone of his campaign rhetoric, Goodenough states that Trump's "views on issues ranging from free trade to climate change to the Iran nuclear deal were sharply at odds with those of the Obama administration and many of its international partners."
But it was back to fawning stenography for a Nov. 11 article by CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman that reads like a three-month-old Trump campaign press release:
As presented on the campaign trail and detailed on the Trump-Pence website, President–elect Donald Trump wants to implement school choice programs in all 50 states that will allow students and their parents to pick the school that works best for them, and the money to pay for it will follow the student, not the school bureaucracy.
“If we can put a man on the moon, dig out the Panama Canal, and win two World Wars, then I have no doubt that we, as a nation, can provide school choice to every disadvantaged child in America,” said Trump in a Sept. 8 speech in Cleveland, Ohio.
Remember that as the Media Research Center criticizes journalism that criticizes Trump, it runs a "news" division that is an arm of the Trump campaign.
WND Begs for Advertisers By Exaggerating Its Alexa Stats Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is now running house ads on its website begging for advertisers, insisting that "WND Works!" Here's the pitch:
At WND (formerly WorldNetDaily), we LOVE working with our valued advertisers and have a true passion to drive consistent, real results that help them grow!
Ranked by Alexa.com as the No. 1 Internet destination for “conservatives,” WND is the leading independent news source on the Internet–and, founded back in 1997, one of the most well-established and trusted.
With between 25–30 million page views each month, WND attracts more traffic than seven of the 10 top newspapers sites–including the L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal and the New York Post!
WND consistently ranks among the largest 500 websites of any kind in the U.S.–and among the top 10 news providers!
Well, as we've previously demonstrated, a lot of what WND claims about itself regarding its popularity is exaggerated or misleading, and that seems to be case here.
Traffic-wise, WND is doing well right now according to Alexa, but that's a function of the election cycle -- it's currently at a peak, and its traffic will decline as we get away from election time. It also derives more than 13 percent of its traffic from the Drudge Report, which seems like a weakness.
There is no straight "conservative" category on Alexa; it's a subgroup under "politics," which itself is a subgroup under "society." And the lead website under Society/Politics/Conservatism right now is actually Alex Jones' Infowars.com; WND is second.
Bozell's Trump Sellout Is Complete Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell wrote in the National Review in February:
Longtime conservative leader Richard Viguerie has a simple test for credentialing a conservative: Does he walk with us?
For the simple reason that he cannot win without conservatives’ support, virtually every Republican presenting himself to voters swears so-help-me-God that he is a conservative. Many of these politicians are calculating, cynical charlatans, running as one thing only to govern in a completely different direction. See: McConnell, McCain, Hatch, Boehner, et al. And for decades it’s worked. Conservatives look at the alternatives — Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, et al. — and bite the bullet. We so often “win” — only for nothing to come of it.
The GOP base is clearly disgusted and looking for new leadership. Enter Donald Trump, not just with policy prescriptions that challenge the cynical GOP leadership but with an attitude of disdain for that leadership — precisely in line with the sentiment of the base. Many conservatives are relishing this, but ah, the rub. Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all.
A real conservative walks with us.
How times change. In May, Bozell flip-flopped and threw the full resources of his Media Research Center behind Trump, later enthustiastically endorsing and parroting Trump's anti-media strategy (which, after all, was based on that of the MRC).
Now, it appears that Bozell's sellout to Trump is complete. A Nov. 9 article at Bozell's CNSNews.com by Matthew Hrozencik uncritically quotes Bozell, at a press conference of conservatives, fawning over Trump's skills as a businessman:
I told [Trump] that the only way you’re going to fix broken government, I believe, is to bring a businessman into Washington. And the only way that you’re going to manage this kind of level of financial output is somebody with business sense, who brings in people who have management experience. I would hope that he would do that and I think he will.
Curiously, Hrozencik first describes Bozell only as "president and treasurer of ForAmerica," not mentioning his MRC connection until the final paragraph.
Hrozencik didn't mention Bozell's previous attack on Trump, let alone provide an explanation of why Bozell made a complete 180 on him.He did note, though, that among the other conservatives at this little presser was none other than Richard Viguerie, who inspired Bozell's earlier rejection of Trump.
Hrozencik also edits out a telling statement from Bozell. If you look at the full video of the event, Bozell prefaced the above statement by saying, "My first in an endless number of miscalculations in this campaign was when I told Donald Trump he couldn't win, and -- which was in May of last year. But I told him that I thought he should run anyway, because with his money, why not."
That's a step toward a mea culpa, but it's not a full explanation. It also suggests that Bozell is not operating based on any fixed set of principles but on "calculations" -- in other words, craven politics.
In short, Bozell sold out his claimed values to stay on the correct side of the Republican Party and remain a player in the conservative movement.
No, Jeff Roorda, There Is Not A 'Genocide On Police' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jeff Roorda's main gig is as the business manager for the police union in St. Louis, a platform he has used to bash anyone who dares criticize the police, especially after the death of Michael Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Mo., and insisted that those progesting police brutality want "dead cops." He also lost a job as a police officer in another Missouri town for lying on a police report. He was also accused of assaulting a woman at a contentious public hearing on a civilian oversight board for St. Louis police (he won't be charged).
Roorda is also author of the newly released WorldNetDaily book "The War on Police" -- which appears to be an rewritten version of his self-published "Ferghanistan" --which denounces "a growing movement, fueled by a biased news media and Black Lives Matter, to demonize police across the country." This means WND has given him space to write op-eds. In September, for instance, Roorda attacked Colin Kaepernick's kneeling protest, ranting that "Kaepernick hates cops" and is "a special sort of treasonist" committing a "seditious act."
In a Nov. 8 WND column, Roorda begins by asking, "It’s a fair question: Are we witnessing a war against police or an act of genocide against police?" Unsurprisingly, he answers yes:
Genocide, constabulicide, the great blue massacre … whatever term you choose to use, you should consider – strongly – the possibility that what we’re witnessing now has escalated into something beyond just a war on police. If Dallas, Baton Rouge and Palm Springs didn’t convince you of that, the eight police officers that have died in a recent eight-day span should. The ambush-style execution of police has become a common occurrence in 2016, and now the cowardly assassination of the two Des Moines area police officers on Nov. 2 culminated a bloody spree of anti-police violence that took the life of an average of one American hero in blue per day starting on Oct. 26.
In fact, as the Washington Post points out, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty has been steadily declining for 40 years, and it has hit a record low under thte Obama administration, despite the uptick this year.
Roorda complains that Black Lives Matter are falsely claiming that "the real genocide is being carried out against young black men by police," but he omits the fact that the "cowardly assassination of the two Des Moines area police officers" came at the hands of a white man who was kicked out of a high school football game for waving a Confederate flag and had a Trump sign in his yard.
Roorda also writes, "I was on the streets of Ferguson and I heard the seething words of hatred that came from the mouths of the antagonists who overthrew an American city." Again, he's hiding something: a Justice Department report found that that Ferguson was a place that used its police and courts as moneymaking ventures, where officers stopped and handcuffed people without probable cause, hurled racial slurs, used stun guns without provocation, and treated anyone as suspicious merely for questioning police tactics.
In other words, what happened in Ferguson did not happen unprovoked. We suspect Roorda doesn't cover that in his WND book.
This is why the pundits got it all wrong. They believed the media and their spin, not just on the coronation of Hillary Clinton, but more important, on America’s repudiation of Donald Trump.
They saw Trump’s voters just as the Clinton campaign saw them: a basket of deplorables. All season long the pro-Hillary press treated Trump’s followers with utter contempt. At the same time the leftwing media were giving aid and comfort to Hillary Clinton, covering up her scandals when they could, spinning them in her favor when they couldn’t.
Don’t anyone here deny it. We documented it all season long. What we saw is what the public saw. In fact, conservatives heard top leftist reporters like Jorge Ramos calling on the news media – yes, the news media – to take sides against Donald Trump.
Needless to say, Bozell won't talk about what we saw:
How his MRC cravenly flip-flopped from Trump-bashers to Trump defenders without telling its readers why. Part of that was its conspiracy theory that "the media" wanted Trump to win the primary so he could be torn down in the general election.
How he and his MRC studiouslyavoided criticizing anything Fox News did in covering the election -- even when Trump criticized it -- in order to preserve the channel as an outlet for Bozell and other MRC staffers to pontificate about the terrible "liberal media."
Bozell's feigned outrage about Ramos was actually part of a calculated war against the Univision anchor to get him fired for daring to be critical of Trump.
The MRC further protecting Trump by insisting that any bad thing he was accused of doing was done first and worse by a Clinton.
The MRC embracing Trump's "rigged media" rants -- based on the MRC's own work -- and remaining silent about the threats of violence against journalists such rhetoric generates.
Bozell went on to show that his mission is only about destruction:
This was a massive repudiation of the press. Our message – “Don’t Believe the Liberal Media” succeeded, and in the next few days we will be unveiling a massive amount of polling data that will document this empirically.
The Gallup organization released a poll recently showing that the trust in the national news media has dropped to an all-time low, and dropped 25% in the last year alone. This is devastating.
The public now knows it is not getting news from the “news” media. It’s getting leftist propaganda, just as we’ve maintained.
The liberal media were the second-biggest losers last night. But as opposed to Clinton, their loss continues. Their credibility is shot, quite possibly for good. It is unfortunate for the honorable, professional journalists working – yes, they do exist – but it’s an incredible win for the American people.
Bozell never mentions the fact that his anti-media crusade has the effect of hurting the credibility of all media, not just the ones he deems "liberal."
And he never says what he wants this destroyed "liberal media" replaced with. That's because his preferred replacement is a right-wing media that just as biased. That's why the MRC stayed silent about right-wing media guy Steve Bannon going straight from Breitbart to running Trump's campaign -- something a member of the "liberal media" has never done for a Democratic candidate. That makes Bozell's complaint about "how these leftist reporters were working side by side with the Clinton campaign" incredibly hollow.
Bozell said nothing new here -- his only goal is to remain a right-wing political player.
WND Eager to Credit God for Trump Victory Topic: WorldNetDaily
Four years ago worldNetDaily was despondent over President Obama's re-election, over which it destroyed its credibility in a failed effort to prevent. WND editor Joseph Farah was particularly despondent, calling Obama's re-election "God's judgment" against America (apparently not considering that it might be God's judgment against WND's atrocious journalistic record) and smearing Obama voters as having "gone awhoring."
How four years and a change in political fortune changes one' attitudes. WND couldn't be happier that America elected the amoral Donald Trump as president, and it's incredibly eager to credit God for it.
Farah declared that "I like to think God smiled on America, maybe because of the prayers of so many forgotten people – people who began to wake up and realize they just didn’t recognize their country any more. They thought about their kids and their grandkids and what kind of world would be left for them if we kept going down the same road at 70 mph," adding: "The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways. He doesn’t always use the people you would expect him to use to exercise His will. He often uses people who are, shall we say, a little rough around the edges to bring justice, bring relief to the persecuted and answer the prayer of His saints. He answered mine on Tuesday."
Columnist Michael Brown echoed Farah: "Yet there are times when there are so many odds against something happening, when it so greatly defies logic, that it is easier to recognize God’s involvement. That, I believe, is the case with Donald Trump winning – and remember, this comes from someone who endorsed Ted Cruz and was one of Trump’s stronger conservative critics during the primaries."
Pat Boone chimed in as well, asserting that Obama was a "God-ordained authority the last eight years" as a result of how Americans "have collectively shoved Him aside, disregarded His Word, His expressed will, and let him know we’d rather do things our own way." And Trump is our salvation, apparently:
In the last year, as we faced a stark choice and a likely descent into more unbridled rebellion against God’s will for America, millions of us repented of our sinful apathy and permission of perversion in our midst, and sought God’s face and prayed for Him to heal our land!
And, as He promised, He heard from heaven and has given us authority to heal our land. He chose a most unlikely man to lead us and bestowed authority on him, and on us, to begin the healing and restoration of America to former greatness.
We now realize God gave us what we said “we” wanted. And He let us see where that would lead us, as it had the rebellious people of Israel when they demanded “a king like the nations around us.” They got what they wanted – and wound up in Babylonian captivity for 70 years. But when they came to their senses and cried out to Him, God brought them back to their land and re-established their nation.
In America, God’s people who are called by His name have repented, sought His face and prayed, and He has given us a new opportunity for leadership and liberty. Let’s not blow it again!
Meanwhile, on the so-called "news" side, WND reporter Garth Kant provided this dramatic interpretation of God's intevention in the election, starring Michele Bachmann:
At 7 p.m., there was no sign of a popular uprising led by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. There was no sign at 8 p.m. There was still no sign as time inexorably marched on.
Something would have to break.
And then it did.
Like a scene out of the film “It’s a Wonderful Life,” people had begun to pray.
But not just in one small town. Across America. And around the world.
Simple acts of faith heralded the first faint wisps of a breeze that would soon become a storm that would shake the world.
It began in Jerusalem.
Christians from many nations gathered in the heart of Israel to pray and fast for the fate of the United States. Americans knelt on stage as the faithful prayed. Organizers instructed them to pray like never before for a just God to deliver his most Christian nation. They called it the Jerusalem Global Gathering.
Christians also gathered to pray for the nation outside the U.S. Capitol. As WND reported, pastor Dan Cummins of the small rural East Texas town of Bullard led prayers for a return to biblical principles.
And it was in Texas that the prayers for deliverance were sent around the world, using modern technology.
A large prayer group had gathered in Dallas, hosted by Ken Copeland ministries. It was broadcast by the Daystar channel. Presenters David Barton and former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., invited viewers to join in prayer.
Daystar has a global reach of 400 million potential viewers.
As they prayed, something began to stir.
“At the precise moment we began broadcasting on Daystar,” Bachmann told WND, “as the polls were still open, and a national audience of believers joined together and prayed in concert, we literally saw the race break in favor of Trump.”
“At that very minute.”
None of these people have apparently considered that the opposite of their biased religious interpretations might be true: that Obama was the blessing and that Trump is the curse, the one who will lead America into the wilderness.
MRC Binges on Schadenfreude Over Trump Win, Forgets How It Acted in 2012 Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center was in full schadenfreude mode, detailing critical media reaction from others to Donald Trump's win. "Meltdown" was a prettyheavily used word.
Curtis Houck wrote: "By Wednesday morning, the on-air, online, and print meltdowns by liberal media types were exploding at an exponential rate with CNN’s New Day facilitating a few as senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin shrieked at the idea of conservatives on the Supreme Court while chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour lost it over 'far-right' European figures being 'eager and jubilant' about President-Elect Donald Trump."
P.J. Gladnick touted "Perez Hilton's mental meltdown last night when it became obvious to him that Donald Trump would be elected president. I am sure there will be other mental meltdowns over this election but this one should definitely be placed in the top 10 of this category as you can see in the following video."
Matthew Balan highlighted one blogger's "extended diatribe in reaction to the election of Donald Trump." And Scott Whitlock featured how "the liberal sulking over Donald Trump’s win on election night continued on MSNBC, Wednesday."
But we remember how MRC staffers reacted to President Obama's re-election in 2012, and, well, it looked a lot like the behavior they're mocking now. For example, Whitlock showed his right-wing sulking when he flatly declared, "America is screwed." Then-MRC writer Liz Thatcher said she was "Sick to my stomach about what the future of the country may be."
In contrast to his 2016 post-election column cheering the death of facts, which the MRC helped throw under the bus to deflect from Trump's continual lies, MRC chief Brent Bozell devoted his entire 2012 post-election column to ranting about how "The media lauded Obama no matter how horrendous his record, and they savaged Obama’s Republican contenders as ridiculous pretenders."
(It's also worth noting that the MRC spent a lot of the 2012 election attacking Nate Silver's poll predictions as being too Obama-friendly -- and, thus, driven by liberal bias -- but couldn't be bothered to apologize when the election results proved him right.)
So, yeah, the MRC was in total meltdown mode four years ago. Which probably means it shouldn't be so gleeful about indulging in the politial meltdowns of others, since it should know that what goes around comes around.
WND Smears Area That Didn't Go For Trump As 'Third World Colony' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has always been filled with bile for those who aren't as white, Christian and right-wing as them. This was encapsulated in a election-night tweet from the main WND account huffing, "If North Virginia wasn't a third world colony for America's failed attempt to be an empire (open borders too), Trump would run away with VA."
"North Virginia" is a reference to the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. -- mainly Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax County and Loudon County. And far from having "third world" conditions these areas are among the wealthiest in America. WND editor Joseph Farah very well knows this, because he lives in Fairfax County and enjoys some of that affluence.
Which makes this WND tweet about race. And it's wrong there too -- Northern Virginia is still majority white at 55%, with the minority population mostly consisting of 16% Hispanic, 11% black and 10% Asian.
So, WND appears to be saying that are too many brown and black people in Northern Virginia for Joseph Farah's comfort. It's also begrudging immigrants (the black and brown onesa chance, anyway) the opportunity to succeed in a region where's already so much success.
It's also worth noting that WND has its main offices in Washington, D.C. We're willing to bet that the people who clean that office aren't white -- they're likely Hispanic or another ethnic minority. What would they think about cleaning the office of an organization that scorns their very presence in the U.S.?
MRC's Bozell & Graham Cheer The Death of Facts Topic: Media Research Center
As we've documented, the MRC protected Trump from the torrent of falsehoods he spouted on a regular basis by attacking the fact-checkers who caught him as biased. Brent Bozell and Tim Graham's post-election column for the Media Research Center couldn't be more proud that facts no longer matter, [playing the false equivalence card by insisting without evbidence that Trump and Hillary Clinton lied equally:
Trump can be careless with facts, and resistant to media shaming. But for these fact-checkers to claim Clinton is far more honest is preposterous. PolitiFact awarded its "Pants on Fire" tag to Trump 57 times to Clinton's seven. Likewise, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler reported that "Trump earned significant more four-Pinocchio ratings than Clinton — 59 to 7, and "The numbers don't lie."
Well, yes, they do. Just ask the parents of the brave men murdered in Benghazi if Clinton lies. Ask the FBI — even Director Comey, who exonerated her. Ask those who held hearings in the House and Senate and listened to her testimony. Ask those who have investigated the Clinton Foundation. They and so many others will speak to her endless lies. But not so the "fact checkers."
It is a given that the default position for the media elite is to rate liberal politicians "True" and conservatives of every faction "False." Take the vice presidential candidates on the PolitiFact "Truth-o-Meter" in this campaign. Tim Kaine was rated "True" or "Mostly True" 26 times, and Mike Pence drew those positive ratings only 8 times. Pence was "False" or "Mostly False" 18 times, and Kaine drew those marks only 11 times. Since Sept. 1, conservatives and Republicans have been scolded as "Pants on Fire" 28 times (fully 14 of those tags were for Trump). Liberals and Democrats? Only four (and only one for Clinton). That's a 7-to-1 tilt, and an obscene 14-to-1 tilt for the presidential candidates.
Bozell and Graham offer refuse to admit the possibility that Trump and Pence were called out for more falsehoods than their Democratic counterparts becaues they told more falsehoods. They don't prove otherwise.
In other words, they're simply throwing more shade at fact-checkers instead of criticizing their falsehood prone candidate. They conclude:
It's time to fact-check the fact checkers. In fact, it's already been done. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, just 29 percent of likely voters trust media fact-checking of the candidates, while 62 percent believed the media "skew the facts to help candidates they support."
Don't you just love the American people? They have awarded on big, fat "Pants on Fire" to the entire national news media for their fact-checking arrogance and plain old dishonesty. And that's a fact.
Bozell and Graham don't mention that Rasmussen has a pretty unambiguous conservative bias -- even Nate Silver thinks so -- or that Rasmussen Reports founder Scott Rasmussen is an occasional columnist at the MRC's NewsBusters blog -- a place Bozell would not allow him to write at were he not a conservative.
Those are facts, and Bozell and Graham are dishonest and arrogant to hide that from their readers. But then, have they ever not been?
WND, Newsmax Attack Early Voting Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of the ConWeb's final attacks before the election was against the idea of early voting.
A Nov. 5 WorldNetDaily article by PR guy Paul Bremmer quotes WND author Daniel Horowitz bashing early voting as "unfair and unconstitutional" and, perhaps more importantly, allegedly benefits Democrats:
Not only does early voting tilt the playing field, but it is unlawful, according to Horowitz. Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to set a day for electing the president, and it mandates that day “shall be the same throughout the United States.”
In 1845, Congress designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for the presidency. In subsequent years Congress enacted laws stating that elections to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate should be held on the same day.
“While many delegates to various state conventions objected to any federal control of elections, it was very clear that the Constitution had indeed vested Congress with the power to create a single election day,” Horowitz asserted. “Ever since the Presidential Election Day Act set that date as ‘the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,’ it’s hard to see how a state holding multiple election days for in-person voting – without any excuse – is not a violation of this law, at least in spirit.”
The whole system benefits Democrats, according to Horowitz, because they almost always take the lead in early voting.
“It’s no coincidence that the electoral map substantially shifted in favor of Democrats beginning in 2008 when early voting first became a significant factor,” Horowitz noted. “As has been the case over the past decade, preliminary estimates of early voting turnout show a significant advantage for Democrats. Reporter Jon Ralston predicts that based on early voting, Hillary has a near-insurmountable lead in the critical state of Nevada.”
Early voting also invites corruption and fraud by making it easier for one person to vote multiple times. The Daily Signal reported recently on eight cases of voter fraud that have happened before Election Day.
“The trend for early voting is only getting worse,” Horowitz warned. “Democrats are seeking to expand the days, hours and locations of early voting at every turn. In the states where they are out of power, the courts have enacted their early voting agenda for them. With modern communication and transportation, it is easier than ever to register to vote and cast a ballot or request and send back an absentee ballot if one is unable to vote in person on Election Day.
“If a single election day was good enough for our first two centuries when it was harder to travel or communicate, it should certainly work for us today.”
In a Nov. 6 Newsmax column, John Gizzi turned to quoting conservative icon William F. Buckley to attack "easy voting," including early voting, because in Buckley's words, "not everyone should vote":
These "early voters" have taken advantage of laws in 38 states that permit voting at certain hours in the days preceding Election Day. Freed from facing the discouraging prospect of a time-consuming wait in line at the polls, the argument goes, people who might just pass on their right to vote will be more inclined to exercise that right.
But this raises the argument of whether the proposition that everyone should vote has merit.
One who argued that it did not was the late William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and editor of National Review and a towering figure in modern conservatism.
"I do not believe that everyone should vote," Buckley wrote in a syndicated column on February 18, 1964, "Everyone should have the right to vote whose record of accomplishments more or less suggest that he attaches an importance to the vote that goes beyond his immediate self-interests."
Means of making voting easier, he argued, "Are tilting us further along in the direction of a thoughtless democracy in which people are increasingly encouraged to vote for the sake of voting."
Almost foreseeing "early voting," Buckley warned that "the next step, of course, will be to deplore the undemocratic inconveniences involved in going all the way to the public booth to cast the vote. At that point, no doubt, AT&T will no doubt come to the rescue, and will contrive a system by which we can all vote over the telephone."
UPDATE: Another Newsmax article touts Dick Morris attacking early voting as "a scheme to commit voter fraud" because "You get a bus full of people or you go into a nursing home and you carry around a petition and people sign and they vote," and "you can eliminate the secret ballot and basically pay people to vote."
Garth Kant declares in a Nov. 6 WorldNetDaily article:
In the wake of the bombshell announcement Sunday by FBI Director James Comey that he still won’t recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton in her email scandal after an initial review of the reported 650,000 emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, American voters are still left with perplexing uncertainties on the eve of the presidential election.
Kant then dedicated his article to wdhat an editor's note called "all significant developments" in "the fast-moving news cycle" before the election. But most of what he cites are unverified rumors or have been discredited entirely.
Kant touted the report by Fox News' Bret Baier that "an indictment is 'likely' in the Clinton Foundation influence peddling scandal," as well as Baier's claim that "a '99 percent' probability the private email server Clinton used for official business as secretary of state was hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies." In fact, Baier has retracted both claims. Kant also highlighted how "Fox’s sources said investigators are “actively and aggressively” looking into the Clinton Foundation." Baier walked that back too.
Curiously, Kant doesn't mention anywhere in his article that the claims are discredited -- he presents them as if they were true.
Kant also touted a claim that Huma Abedin "reportedly 'flipped' and began cooperating with investigators looking into possible crimes by the former secretary of state." As he also notes, it's an unverified claim from Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater, the security firm notorious for its actions during the Iraq War.
He also cites how "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the Russian government is not the source of the thousands of emails his website has published from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta." The source: Russia Today, the media outlet of the Russian government. Not exactly trustworthy.
Kant also cites how "The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee accused Hillary Clinton of treason on Thursday," which is an utterly meaningless claim. And then there's "A WikiLeaks email dug up on Friday by the Daily Caller revealed that Clinton Foundation bigwig Doug Band ripped Chelsea Clinton as, 'not smart.'" That's less than meaningless.
Consider this yet another desperate last-minute attempt to throw mud at Hillary, which is what WND is allabout right now.
CNS Plays Key Role In MRC's Echoing of Trump's 'Rigged Media' Ranting Topic: CNSNews.com
Part of the Media Research Center's synergy with the Donald Trump campaign in building and then echoing Trump's "rigged media" strategy took place at the MRC's "news" division CNSNews.com. There, as part of its stenography work for Trump, CNS writers gave special attention to uncritically repeating the Trump campaign's complaints (as well from as their surrogates) about the media. Note these headlines:
Russian Hackers? 45% Call News Media 'Primary Threat That Might Try to Change Election Results'
Those first five articles are by Melanie Hunter, who wrote nine Trump-stenography articles in October alone. The last two are from CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman.
CNS was also quick to forward media criticism of anything that made Trump look bad, in addition to dutifully printing the latest rants from boss Brent Bozell. For example, an Oct. 14 article by Barbara Hollingsworth, for instances, touted how "Conservative leaders are calling out NBC for the network's apparent attempt to 'time' the release of an 11-year old videotape of a lewd conversation between Donald Trump and former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush in order to inflict maximum damage on Trump’s presidential campaign." Hollingsworth made no effort to contact actual media professionals outside the circle of MRC-friendly folks with an obvious interest in the election's outcome, to also comment on the media's handling of the damning Trump tape.
Hollingsworth also actively tried to deflect from allegations of Trump's closeness to Russia -- as well as the fact that Russian hackers are widely blamed for stealing the clinton campaign emails posted by WikiLeaks -- by ranting about the media in a Nov. 2 article asserting that "More people see the news media--as opposed to Russian hackers or political bosses--as the "primary threat that might try to change the election result," according to a recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll."
And CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey made sure to let us know in a Nov. 3 article that "Fifty-two percent of registered voters say that the media is biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in this presidential election, according to a poll released today by Gallup."
If Trump loses, look for CNS to reliably and uncritically parrot anyone and everyone who will blame the media for it. It's what they do.