The MRC-Mark Levin Cross-Promotion Spectacular Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a business relationship with Mark Levin, in which they promote each other. They both remind us of this once again, even as they fail to disclose this relationship to their respective readers and listeners.
On March 5, CNSNews.com blogger Craig Bannister touted how "Levin Uses Liberal Media’s OWN WORDS as 'Evidence' Obama Spied on Trump." (Though we doubt Levin spoke with the boldface and underlines and all-caps Bannister generously ascribes to him.) Except, well, that's not exactly what happened; Levin is desperately trying to pump up intelligence agencies' alleged monitoring of the Trump campaign's links to Russia into something he can maliciously speculate about but can't prove: that Obama personally ordered it or, at the very least, knew about it at the time.
When CNN's Brian Stelter had the temerity to point out that Levin's conflation did not constitute actual evidence that Obama personally had Trump Tower wiretapped, as President Trump claimed in a tweet, Bannister was there to dutifully transcribe Levin's open-letter rant to Stelter sneering that he was being "thoroughly dishonest" for reporting the truth. A NewsBusters post pretty much did the same thing.
WND Launches Another Personal Attack on Prof Who Put It On List of Fake-News Sites Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is still in personal attack mode against anyone who tells the truth about its lack of credibility.
Last November, when Merrimack College professor Melissa Zimdars put WND on a list of "not credible" websites -- something that's pretty obvious about WND from simply reading the site -- WND's Chelsea Schilling devoted an article to smearing her, stealing unflattering photos of her from her Twitter account (without permission, we can guess) and mocking her academic credentials by emphasizing that she has done research in "fat studies," published a paper on "fat acceptance TV."
Well, Zimdars' list got linked by Harvard University in a research guide, so Schilling is dragging out her attacks again in a March 13 article, republishing all those unflattering stolen pics and sneering that Zimdars is "leftist, Trump-bashing assistant professor in Massachusetts who specialized in 'fat studies'" and who "only actually held her teaching position at the private college in North Andover, Massachusetts, for about 19 months."
Indeed, Schilling is so busy trying to smear Zimdars that the vast majority of her article is dedicated to bashing her. Despite calling Zimdars' list "error-riddled," at no point does Schilling deny or disprove anything Zimdars said about WND beyond complaining that the "Zimdars’ project offers no explanation for" calling WND "unreliable."
Of course, the fact that WND tries to smear its critics rather than engage with them is one clear sign it's "unreliable."
There's also the record from just the past few months, in which WND:
MRC Defends Gay Conversion Therapy Topic: Media Research Center
A March 17 Media Research Center post by Dawn Slusher noting that an episode of the new TV series "Greenleaf" touches on the subject of "conversion therapy" intended to turn a gay person straight feels the need to speak up for the practice:
There has been much rancor over gay conversion therapy programs for decades, but the topic has again been hotly debated as of late with Vice President Mike Pence’s support for such programs as well as Ken Blackwell, Domestic Policy Advisor to the Trump Presidential Transition Team. ABC’s 20/20 revived the debate in an exposé last week, as well. Though judging by the reviews, the exposé leaned heavily in favor of those who demonize such programs.
Rarely will you find the Hollywood left giving facts, statistics and answers on those who have found success in conversion therapy, but the season premiere of the Oprah Winfrey Network's (OWN) Greenleaf, “A House Divided,” is providing an interesting look on the issue from the point-of-view of a married couple who are leaders in the family church facing a tumultuous time after the revelation that the husband is attracted to men.
For these "facts, statistics and answers," Slusher cites a pro-conversion therapy group that claims criticism of conversion therapyare "opinion, not science" and cites the virulently anti-gay group NARTH in support, and self-proclaimed ex-transgender woman Walt Heyer, a current fave of anti-gay activists who admits he was misdiagnosed as transgender.
Slusher goes on to rant:
If we are supposed to accept those who believe being gay isn’t a choice, why then are we not allowed to accept those who believe it is? If women in this country are allowed to take the life of their unborn child in the name of “freedom of choice,” why then can’t a gay man or woman have the right to choose conversion therapy without the threat of the government shutting down such programs?
Reparative therapist the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi spoke to VirtueOnline.org about the left’s attempt to deny conversion therapy treatments to those who seek to change, saying, “The justification for denying the client's autonomy and self-determination is the arrogant assumption that ‘we know better what's good for you than you do.’ We will tell you what your problem is, which is to learn to enjoy gay sex. So drop your inhibitions, drop your archaic religious beliefs, forget your morality or ethic and join the gay parade.”
Yes, there have been horror stories and abuses of conversion therapy programs, but that can be said about any type of therapy. There will always be those who use it for selfish gain and profit, or for pure power and abuse. That doesn’t mean there are not good and successful programs out there for those who wish to pursue them.
Nicolosi was a founder of NARTH, which tells you all you need to know about him and his motivations. And if are "good and successful programs" for conversion therapy as Slusher claims there is, why have none surfaced during state hearings to ban the practice that use a scientifically valid, replicable method that does no harm to the client, and why did Slusher cite any in her post? Perhaps because one doesn't exist.
The MRC is being irresponsible in promoting a discredited therapy method, just as it was in promoting a certain strain of anti-vaxxer activism.
WND's Anti-Gay 'Beauty And The Beast' Freakout Fails, As Does The Boycott Topic: WorldNetDaily
When the news came out that Disney's live-action remake of "Beauty and the Beast" had re-imagined the villainous sidekick LeFou as gay, the gay-haters at WorldNetDaily did what it does: go into fearmongering mode.
Bob Unruh fretted over Disney's disturbing pattern of treating gays like normal people in a March 8 WND article:
The Disney company long has had a “gay” advocacy position at its theme parks, where “gay days” are routinely held.
That’s far afield from reports that founder Walt Disney “personally” fired Tommy Kirk, the actor of “Swiss Family Robinson” fame, over his homosexuality.
But since then, Disney used “out” singer Elton John’s music for “The Lion King” and more.
Now, however, the company has stepped into a whole new minefield with its promotion of homosexuality – to children.
Unruh went on to uncfritically quote gay-hater Franklin Graham fretting that "'Beauty and the Beast' will feature a gay character in an attempt to normalize this lifestyle" and demanding a boycott of all Disney products.
Funny, one would have thought Graham and WND would be at least cheered by the fact that the gay character is a villain.
The same day, WND columnist Michael Brown asked whether "As followers of Jesus, it is right for us to boycott Disney in general or 'Beauty and the Beast' in particular?" He approved the boycott as long as it was done in a manner that is not hypocritical, insisting that "it is not hate to say, 'I don’t want my kids to witness a gay kiss or a gay romance,' any more than it is hate for a Jewish atheist to say, 'I don’t want my kids to listen to a rabbi’s sermon,' or for a gay parent to say, 'I don’t want my kids to be exposed to Bible verses that speak against homosexuality.'"
WND columnist Scott Morefield lamented that "there is enough diversity of opinion in the United States to almost unequivocally state that boycotts never work, at least not in the way they are intended," but he also ranted:
Has the homosexual lobby’s relentless efforts to sway the public in their direction now reached the point where it is potentially damaging to our kids? After all, it’s one thing to teach children to treat all people with respect, but it’s quite another to “normalize” a lifestyle that at best is contrary to what Christians and thousands of years of human development believes is the best way to raise children – the nuclear family – and at worst is rife with disease and psychiatric disorders. And make no mistake, the path Disney and others are on goes far beyond simple “normalization.” They want children to see this behavior as something to be desired.
Don’t believe it? Then why do upwards of 15 percent of young women and girls identify as “bisexual” when for most of human history the percentage stood around 2?
Morefield added of Disney that "the once-trusted studio continues to reach new lows and it would be awesome to see the pendulum swing in our direction for once, just a little."
Still, WND started a petition citing "Beauty and the Beast," as well as other purported offenses, including one it had nothing to do with -- that "LGBT activists have long pressured Disney to promote their sexual agenda to America’s youth – as with their 2016 campaign to persuade Disney to portray Elsa from 'Frozen' as a lesbian, using the hashtag #GiveElsaAGirlfriend -- to (all caps is theirs) "TELL DISNEY YOU WILL BOYCOTT 'BEAUTY AND THE BEAST' AND OTHER DISNEY FARE UNTIL IT RETURNS TO THE WHOLESOME FAMILY VALUES IT ONCE CHAMPIONED AND STOPS MARKETING A HARMFUL SEXUAL AGENDA TO OUR CHILDREN."
As with most other WND petitions, this is email address-harvesting operation to build up its mailing list, and no count of signature -- let alone any mention of a verification process to prove the signatures are from actual people and not duplicates or automated -- is provided.
So how's all that working for WND? Not very well. "Beauty and the Best" earned a record $170 million in its opening weekend and $350 million worldwide.
In all this freakout, however, WND expressed no concern about the central romance of "Beauty and the Beast,"even though it has warned against human-animal hybrids in the past.
Maddow's Trump Tax Reveal Sends MRC Into Attack Mode Topic: Media Research Center
After MSNBC's Rachel Maddow revealed a couple of pages of Donald Trump's 2005 tax returns, the Media Research Center went into overdrive trying to dismiss it as a "fail" and/or a "flop" and/or a "non-story":
The fact that the MRC devoted 12 posts to Maddow's tax-return reveal within 48 hours after the story aired would seem to indicate the opposite of what it's trying to tell us -- that it really wasn't the "fail" or "non-story" the MRC repeatedly insists it was.
The MRC is certainly not going to give Maddow credit for doing something no other media organization has done to date, as the Washington Post's Erik Wemple points out: get Trump to didsclose information about his taxes.
The MRC went even further into pro-Trump spin mode with a March 17 post by James Powers asserting that "Trump’s effective tax rate for 2005 was 79 percent" accounting for the $103 million in losses he took (on $151 million in income) and the alternative minimum tax he paid.
WND Still Complaining About Trump Impeachment Talk, Forgetting It Agitated for Hillary Impeachment Topic: WorldNetDaily
Myra Adams complains in her March 9 WorldNetDaily column:
Precisely because the Founding Fathers’ grounds for impeachment are so pliable, and the nation is so polarized, not a day passes in the media universe without one hearing or reading the word “impeachment” applied to President Trump after only seven weeks in office.
That explains why the phrase “Trump Impeachment” yields 15,700,000 hits on Google.
For Trump-haters who enjoy betting, impeachment gambling is all the rage at Ladbrokes, the British odds-making site. Currently, the odds are 4 to 5 that Trump will “leave office via impeachment or resignation before the end of his first term.” The odds are “even” that Trump will “serve a full term.”
Democratic leaders whipping up impeachment hysteria are assisted by a complicit media with a proclivity for manipulating impeachment polling data.
With what I call the “Trump Impeachment Follies” in full swing, Republicans must be ready to wage war against Democrats and their media allies who are using deceptive tactics to indulge their impeachment fantasies against the will of the American people.
Bob Unruh followed in a March 10 WorldNetDaily article:
Democrats failed bigtime in the 2016 presidential election, with Republican Donald Trump stunningly handing the Dems’ power machine, Hillary Clinton, her second Oval Office-chase collapse, even after the friendly media made it clear she was entitled to the job.
Then they failed when they tried to get the nation’s electors to be faithless to the voters and pick anyone but Trump. A couple of them who did fall prey to the campaign recently were fined $1,000.
And the Democrats failed when they took the fight to the courts, demanding recounts. In at least one state, they ended up losing votes to Trump before the recount was shut down.
What do they have left?
["Trump critic" Lawrence] Tribe claimed, “Using power of WH to falsely accuse predecessor of impeachable felony does qualify as an impeachable offense whether via tweet or not.”
Former Labor secretary Robert Reich tweeted: “By my count, there are now four grounds to impeach Trump. The fifth seems to be on its way.”
Both Adams and Unruh -- as WND usuallydoes -- have conveniently forgotten they argued the opposite when it came to Hillary Clinton. As we've noted, Hillary Clinton wasn't even running for president in 2015 when WND started agitating for her impeachment, and WND was touting just a couple days before the November election how "If Hillary Clinton wins the election Tuesday, a prominent Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee says there will be an immediate move to impeach her before she can even be sworn into office Jan. 20."
Unruh also wants us to believe that "dozens of scandals under President Obama that included potentially impeachable offenses." But WND's main effort in pushing that idea was a laughable, falsehood-ridden "Case for Impeachment" that was led by Obama's purported illegitimacy to be president.
The actual story here is that WND doesn't like it when others try to do to Trump what it did to Obama. How hypocritical.
MRC's Blumer Still Doesn't Understand How AP Works Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center blogger Tom Blumer is obsessed with bashing the Associated Press -- yet not so obsessed with it to bother to understand how the news cooperative works.
Blumer devoted a March 5 post to complaining that the AP ran the address of a private email account Vice President Mike Pence's wife used to conduct official business while Pence was Indiana governor. Pence's account was hacked.
Blumer is huffing that the AP didn't remove the email address from the original story after Pence told the AP the account was still active (instead agreeing not to publish it in future articles), self-righteously asserting he "won't link" to the story with the address but instead linking to a Google search with the story "as the current first item listed."
Well, there's your problem, Tom. The story is not at the AP website but, rather, at the Boston Globe. And, thus, we are compelled to explain to Blumer how the AP works.
The AP is not a news organization per se but a news cooperative, sustained by the membership fees of subscribers like the Globe that run AP content in exchange for making their own original content available to the AP for distribution. AP members are generally free to do what they will with AP's content, such as adding their own localized content to an AP story.
AP stories on the websites of other subscribing news organizations are not on AP servers but, rather, servers run by those news organizations, so there's little the AP could do on its own to retroactively redact the offending email address in question because dozens, if not hundreds, of news organizations would have to individually make that change. In other words, the AP could demand that the Globe redact the email address from its story, but it has little power to ensure that it actually did so. Meanwhile, the AP has no power whatsoever to stop those who copy the story without its authorization.
The AP's stance, then, is a prudent one that recognizes that the Internet is forever and it cannot purge every single instance of the address off the web.
While Blumer rants at the AP for taking a "Karen Pence's privacy be damned" approach to the issue, he gives a pass to Pence's wife for stupidly insisting on continuing to use an email account that was 1) hacked, or at least exposed in the hacking of her husband's account; 2) exposed as having been used for official business in contradiction of ethics if not the law (to which Blumer also gives a pass), and 3) published by a news organization and given wide dissemination.
And AP is the irresponsible one here? Only in Blumer's fevered brain.
Genocide Watch Founder Confirms WND Columnist Misquoted Him Topic: WorldNetDaily
The other day, we highlighted Barbara Simpson's WND March 12 column in which she claims to quote Genocide Watch founder Gregory Stanton saying things about the purported "white genocide" in South Africa that seem to diverge from his normal tone on the subject, particularly things like "For God’s sake, don’t disarm. Do not disarm."
We contacted Genocide Watch to find out if he really said those things. Stanton responded by email:
Thank you for bringing to my attention an article claiming to "quote" me on "white genocide in South Africa."
They are, as you suspected, a series of "quotes" put together in a way that completely mis-represents my views about the situation in South Africa.
The figure quoted in the article that there have been 100,000 murders of whites in South Africa is a gross exaggeration. It is certainly not true since 1994. Indeed far more black South Africans are victims of crime than white South Africans.
Although I don't believe that police in South Africa provide adequate protection to any group, the danger from criminal gangs to farmers who give up their arms is acute. When the notorious "commandos" were disbanded and farmers gave up their arms, they were promised police protection to replace their self-defense. That has not been implemented. But the reason is largely from lack of adequate training, support, and supervision of police forces; not an intentional policy of neglect by the government. Until the crime rate falls, I advised farmers not to give up the arms they possess with permits for their self defense.
I am grateful that you have brought this article to my attention. Please send a rejoinder to the publication that published it. You may quote me.
I just don't have time to respond to all of the mis-representations of the warnings by Genocide Watch about dangerous trends in South Africa and other countries.
Consider it done, Dr. Stanton. We're sending an email link to this post to Simpson's WND email address.
MRC Writer Can't Stop Pushing 'Fungible' Canard About Planned Parenthood Funding Topic: Media Research Center
Back in January, we shot down Media Research Center writer Katie Yoder's assertion that federal money given to Planned Parenthood is "fungible" -- an argument that conveniently ignores the fact that this federal money is provided for specific services and cannot be shifted elsewhere.
In keeping with the current MRC tradition of ignoring facts that counter its political agenda, Yoder keeps making the same false argument.
In a March 7 post, Yoder hammered on a certain false theme (bolding is ours):
These are the questions the networks refuse to fully address: If abortion is just three percent of Planned Parenthood’s “services,” why doesn’t it stop for the sake of federal funding? Or, if federal funding doesn't go towards abortion, why would the administration halt Planned Parenthood funding?
Answers: It isn’t only three percent and money is fungible.
While the Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision approved annually by Congress, bars federal funding (aka taxpayer funding) for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, pro-life leaders argue that the government money is fungible.
But the networks won’t tell viewers that.
She failed to address the argument that money is fungible, or that Planned Parenthood could offset costs with public funds to free up other resources for abortion. Another point highlighted by pro-life groups.
The only evidence Yoder provides for this is an unsubstantiated assertion by Republican Sen. James Lankford that "The money is fungible," as well as her and fellow MRCer Sarah Stites' ridiculous analogy that "imagine giving your teen $20 to use specifically for gas. Although he can’t buy beer with that $20, he can now use his own $20 to purchase alcohol since the gas was covered by you."
Someone forgot to tell Yoder and Stites that teens can't legally buy alcohol. And it still doesn't take into account the fact that federal money to Planned Parenthood isn't intermingled with other funds and Planned Parenthood must account to the feds their spending on the programs the money is designated toward.
But hey, the truth no longer matters at the MRC.
UPDATE: Yoder makes the assertion again in a March 17 post, though she tones down her certainty: "pro-life leaders and politicians argue money is fungible – or that Planned Parenthood could offset costs with federal funds to free up other resources for abortion." And "money is fungible" is again linked to her and Stites' dumb teen-buying-alcohol argument.
At least she sort of concedes that "money is fungible" is just something right-wingers "argue" and not actually based in fact.
CNS' Jones Obsesses Over Calls to Release Trump's Taxes -- Then Ignores Actual Release Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has been weirdly obsessed lately with media mentions of calls for Donald Trump to release his income taxes.
We noted that on March 2 and March 6, CNS' Susan Jones made a point of bringing up how Sen. Al Franken said that Trump should release his tax returns, even though the subject at hand was some other Trump-related controversy.
In another March 6 article, Jones quoted Sen. Susan Collins noting that any investigation of claims that members of the Trump campaign collaborated with Russia before the election or Trump's still-unsubstantiated claim that President Obama wiretapped Trump campaign headquarters might require a look at Trump's tax returns.
On March 9, Jones devoted yet another article to it, this time based on comments by Nancy Pelosi and framed as Pelosi wanting to rummage through them for something that caused "personal embarrassment to the president." Jones huffed: "Democrats, including Pelosi, say Trump is the only president since Gerald Ford not to release his tax returns. There is no law saying he must do so."
Another March 9 article by Jones touched on it as well, which noted a proposed Democratic amendment to the Republican health care bill "that would allow the [House Ways and Means] committee to review Trump's tax returns in closed session." Again, Jones grumbled that "there is no law requiring Trump to release his tax returns."
Jones still wasn't done. She began a March 13 article this way:
As more and more Democrats angle to see Donald Trump’s tax returns, believing they may contain information that could be used against him, the ranking member of the House intelligence committee took a more measured approach on Sunday.
Jones didn't mention that Trump's abject refusal to release his tax returns like every other major presidential candidate in modern history invites this kind of speculation. As the saying goes, if you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.
That six articles in 11 days on Democrats wanting to see Trump's taxes. A little obsessive, perhaps?
Here's the capper, though: When MSNBC's Rachel Maddow released a two-page summary of Trump's 2005 tax return on March 14 -- information that was confirmed by the White House -- Jones didn't see that as news, for she did no story on it.
It looks like Jones has once again exposed her bias for all the world to see.
WND, Which Complained Feds Had Too Many Bullets, Now Complain They Don't Have Enough Topic: WorldNetDaily
Now that President Obama is out of office and politically motivated complaints about federal aid going to Kenya no longer fit WorldNetDaily's political agenda, WND correspondent Steve Peacock has to write about something. So he writes in a March 12 WND article:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it possesses a “limited amount” of 9mm bullets for agents in the field as well as for training purposes, and it is rationing its ammunition based on internal requests until it can award a new contract.
It is one of several federal law-enforcement agencies that say they are reaching a “critical stage”: Their 9mm ammunition is being depleted and tens of thousands of service handguns are approaching the end of their life-cycle, too.
What Peacock doesn't tell you: A few years ago, WND was fearmongering that DHS and other agencies were buying too many bullets.
In January 2013, WND's Aaron Klein complained that "the federal government -- primarily the Department of Homeland Security -- possesses an ammunition surplus while local and state authorities face ammunition shortages and backlogs in purchasing more rounds." ICE is part of DHS.
In February 2013, WND editor Joseph Farah cited "the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland Security" as evidence of his utterly false conspiracy theory that Obama was creating a "civilian national security force" that was actually a domestic army and the federal stockpile was being created because "Obama would like to deny [them] to ordinary citizens who are not members of his domestic army."
Farah's column was accompanied by a poll asking "Why is Homeland Security stockpiling big supplies of guns and ammo?" The top answer by far: "Obama is preparing to declare martial law."
WND also touted Sarah Palin's claim that the government is "stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest," as well as right-wing radio host Mark Levin's assertion that the feds are "armed now for a 24-year Iraq war."
March 2013, though, was the peak of WND's ammo fearmongering. As one article put it:
When the numbers are put in perspective, the federal government’s extraordinary buildup of ammunition looks even more ominous than critics already have portrayed it.
An analysis by Forbes contributor Ralph Benko shows the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo that the government is acquiring would be enough for more than 100 years of training.
As WND previously reported, it also would be enough ammunition to fight a war for more than 20 years.
It would give the federal government enough ammunition to shoot every American more than five times.
Klein even got Code Pink's Madea Benjamin to express concern about the ammo purchases, in an attempt to portray it as a bipartisan issue. And WND's Drew Zahn had a right-wing congressman suggest that the Obama administration was stonewalling over the issue- - even though he also reports that "the Department of Homeland Security has argued that it is buying in bulk to save money."
As recently as April 2015, WND was still complaining about feds having too much ammo, grumbling that "The Department of Justice is seeking to purchase 95,000 rounds of 9mm hollow-point bullets and has posted online a solicitation that requires bids to be submitted by April 30," adding that "the federal government’s bulk purchase of ammunition in recent years, including a proposal to buy 1.6 billion bullets, has raised concerns about the government’s need for such supplies."
A better reporter would have tried to explain how WND has moved from complaining that the government was buying too much ammo to complaining it doesn't have enough. Peacock is not that reporter.
MRC's Graham Thinks Right-Wing Reporters Aren't Biased Topic: Media Research Center
Right-wing snob (and terrible media critic) Tim Graham is at his lame ways again, this time over the influx of right-wing media outlets in the White House briefing room.
In a March 11 Media Research Center post, attacked the Washington Post for highlighting that a right-wing partisan, Fred Lucas of the Heritaqge Foundation-operated Daily Signal, served as a pool reporter.
Graham then uses a March 13 post to rant about "the leftist snobs at The New Yorker" for noting the right-wing influx in "a snide piece full of anonymous whiners." Graham whined that the Post accurately referred to the DailySignal as a partisan outlet:
Let that sink in. The Washington Post, describing itself as somehow outside the “partisan press.” MSNBC, outside the “partisan press”? The New York Times, with the front-page essay on the need for “oppositional” media to defeat Trump and elect Hillary, outside the “partisan press”?
But the Times and the Post have walls between editorial and opinion. Can the Daily Signal say that? Can Graham say that about any right-wing outlet? Indeed, Graham merely regurgitates Daily signal editor Rob Bluey's unsubstantiated assertion that there's "a hard firewall" between Heritage's partisan operations and the Daily Signal.
Graham does eventually get around to a bit of relevant disclosure: "Fred Lucas is a friend and a veteran of MRC’s news outlet, CNSNews.com. So is Rob Bluey, who runs the Daily Signal."
Lucas (pictured above) was a highly biased reporter during his time at CNS, fearmongering about the alleged hazards of fluorescent light bulbs, peddling anti-Obama conspiracies and maliciously attacking Obama's family. Bluey, meanwhile, did misleading reporting on the anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Vets (that benefited the Swift Boaters) while at CNS.
With such biased people running the Daily Signal, let's not pretend there's any meaningful "firewall" between it and the rest of Heritage -- just as there is no meaningful fifewall between CNS and the rest of the MRC. If the jobs of Bluey and Lucas were not to push Heritage's agenda, they wouldn't be working there.
Of course, Graham's playing a zero-sum game here: He thinks any reporter who's not reliably right-wing is "liberal."
Graham seems to also take offense at the title of the New Yorker piece, "Is Trump Trolling The White House Press Corps?" But he's curiously silent about, nor does he excerpt, the part of the piece that answers the headline's question: a captured conversation between Jim Hoft, head of right-wing blog Gateway Pundit and the stupidest person on the internet, and his new White House reporter, Lucian Winritch, who said that a conservative-media friend told him "You were brought in to troll the press corps, and you’d better troll hard." Hoft himself is quoted saying of Winritch: "He's there to troll."
Graham, of course, is too busy smugly hurling insults like "'Smug Little Cartel' is an excellent summation of The New Yorker" to say anything intelliggent about this. Perhaps because he wants right-wing trolls in the White House press corps to be tossing softballs to Sean Spicer.
Need proof? Just six hours before Graham's rant was posted, an MRC post by Kyle Drennen touted one of those softball questions from a right-wing reporter:
Responding to a question from The Daily Caller’s Kaitlan Collins during Monday’s White House press briefing about slanted media coverage of ObamaCare, Sean Spicer accused journalists of ignoring the failures of the health care law and instead portraying it as “all rainbows and puppies.”
Collins wondered: “How is the press making ObamaCare look good?” Spicer began his response by observing: “Well, I think when you see some of these comparisons [between ObamaCare and the GOP replacement plan] that occur in they talk about who’s gonna win and who’s gonna lose, it misses a lot of the competition that's going to take place. It doesn't talk about the increased choice [in the GOP plan].”
That's exactly the kind of right-wing propaganda that Graham wants to hear.
WND Pretends It Was A Responsible Birther Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily pretends to be the responsible birther it never actually was in a March 10 article by Bob Unruh:
It raised quite a stir when Barack Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, tweeted on Friday an image purporting to be the former president’s birth certificate – and supposedly revealing a Kenyan birth.
However, as WND demonstrated back in 2009, the alleged Kenyan birth certificate Malik Obama tweeted is the same fraudulent document that had been offered for sale by eBay seller Lucas Smith and which the seller had displayed on YouTube.
But, as WND’s investigation revealed at the time, it is not a valid document.
Screen shot of whole document from Lucas Smith’s video As WND reported in 2009, administrators at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, the hospital named as President Obama’s supposed birth hospital in the document, refused to authenticate the record when contacted by WND sources in Kenya.
What Unruh doesn't tell you: WND spent nearly two months touting Smith's certificate before the "investigation" it allegedly conducted debunking it.
WND first wrote about the certificate Smith tried to sell in a June 27, 2009, article by Unruh breathlessly presenting it as real:
With dozens of lawsuits filed over access to Barack Obama’s certified long-form birth certificate, many more lawyers working on his behalf to keep it secret and the validity of the U.S. Constitution hanging in the balance, guess where a “certified copy” of the original Mombasa “document” has been found?
Item No. 160344928067, at least as of today, is described as “a certified copy of President Barack Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate.”
The suspicion that Coast Provincial is, in fact, Obama’s birth hospital is not new, with the subject having been discussed on both Internet blogs and forums already.
But the seller, who according to the eBay rankings has completed dozens of transactions on the behemoth auction site without difficulties, said this is the real deal.
The seller, who did not respond to a WND request for an interview, said online he was traveling in Kenya and repeatedly heard stories that Obama actually was born in Kenya.
The next day, WND framed an article onthe certificate by asking "How much would a genuine copy of President Obama’s birth certificate – from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya – be worth on the open market?" But it also quoted Jerome Corsi exhibiting some skepticism about the certificate, stating that "Corsi wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the eBay seller may have somehow obtained a genuine document, but stated only that his efforts in Kenya proved fruitless" then adding, "WND has continued to attempt to contact the seller through several channels."
On June 30, WND complained that "A notice from eBay administrators is now warning people who have contacted the seller of an allegedly genuine copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate – from Mombasa, Kenya – not to contact the seller again" and that "the sale page offering a dissertation on “the truth” about Obama’s birth – with bids reported by WND readers to have exceeded $1 million – has been pulled from the auction website for the fifth time." It repeated the Corsi skepticism.
On July 1, Unruh touted how "The eBay auction seller who has tried multiple times to sell an allegedly genuine copy of Barack Obama’s “Kenyan birth certificate” now is offering for sale a photograph of individuals who reportedly contributed to the strategy through which the still-unproven document was obtained." Unruh quoted the selling stating that "After the YouTube video I will be heading over to WorldNetDaily to talk with Joseph Farah. I will disclose everything to them," adding, "Contact between the seller and WND has so far been limited to an exchange of e-mails."
The next day, Unruh reported that a sixth eBay listing for the certificate was "scrubbed" by eBay and that "doubts have begun to flourish as a promised YouTube video about the issue also failed to appear."
Around this time, we reported that a blogger had identified the poster of the eBay certificate as Lucas Smith.
It was not until Aug. 25 -- nearly two months after WND first started reporting on the Smith certificate -- that Corsi declared it to be "not a valid document."
Yet a couple weeks later, on Sept. 11, WND touted how Smith "filed court papers insisting – under threat of perjury – that the Obama birth certificate in his possession is the genuine article," curiously failing to mention Corsi's declaration.The article did link to another WND article about a separate purported Kenyan birth certificate that was not the one Smith was peddling. (That one was also fake.)
So, no, WND has not been a responsible birther -- it debunked the Smith certificate only after it had gotten all the publicity mileage out if it that it could.
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 66: Against History Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent a good part of the Obama years complaining that the media described historic events as "historic." Read more >>
WND Is Concerned About Whites In South Africa Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has long had an affinity for the white part of South Africa, from Anthony LoBaido's hanging out with pro-apartheid militant groups to former columnist Ilana Mercer pining for the days of apartheid. Charlreston shooter and white supremacist Dylann Roof, who was also concerned, may have even read about some of that at WND.
Now WND is cranking up its concern for South African whites again.
Alex Newman -- who likes to whitewash apartheid and the militancy of some white South Africans claiming to be victims -- wrote a Feb. 25 WND column about the Suidlanders, "Western-minded Christians" who are "preparing for the worst"; It takes a few paragraphs before Newman admits that these are whites fearing persecution by the black majority. Despite Newman's portrayal of the group as primarily a "Christian organization," it appears that the Suidlanders are just right-wing preppers heavily into fearmongering.
Newman once again whitewashes apartheid to portray the current situation as much worse: "During the apartheid era, there were fewer than 20 race-based laws. Today, more than 100 race-based laws discriminating against whites have been created under the guise of 'empowering' blacks."
Newman then writes:
The result has been hundreds of thousands of whites excluded from the labor market, living in squatter camps that have recently been garnering international media attention.
Estimates suggest as much as 10 percent of the white population is now living in squatter camps, with one analyst classing it an “economic genocide.”
There are approximately 4.5 million whites in South Africa, which would mean that, according to Newman, there are more than 400,000 whites living in squatter camps. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Africa Check, less than 8,000 white households in the country are living in "shacks, informal settlements, caravans or tents."
Further, as CNN notes, unemployment among whtes remains the lowest of all ethnic groups in South Africa.
Newman's column was followed by an anonymously written March 11 WND article that called on "international journalist Alex Newman" to complain about how "scandal-plagued South African president Jacob Zuma recently called for the unity of black parties to allow the expropriation, literally theft, of white-owned land without compensation." Newman doesn't explain that doing so would require a change in the South African constitution, so it's not as easy as he suggests.
We don't dispute that Zuma may very well be a bad, corrupt leader -- heck, "Daily Show" host Trevor Noah admits as much. But Noah also notes that Donald Trump has indicated a Zuma-esque approach to running America, something Newman and WND probably won't want to discuss.
Then, on March 12, Barbara Simpson devoted her WND column to ranting about "white genocide" in South Africa. She concludes with this:
Dr. Gregory Stanton, with Genocide Watch, speaks openly about genocide, what leads to it and how to determine when it’s actually taking place
He said it’s difficult to convince countries outside of South Africa because of our emotional attachment to Nelson Mandela and a resistance to speak openly about what’s really happening in that country – a world record murder rate, more than 100,000 white murders, torture deaths of white farmers, 95 percent black-on-white murder rate and the world’s highest rape rate.
That’s not in your local news.
Dr. Stanton was specific about the terror among South African whites and that they can’t depend on police or government protection.
He spoke of the line of defense against such racial violence, saying “it’s local – the local courts, the political system. Do everything you can legally to draw attention to it.”
And then he said: “For God’s sake, don’t disarm. Do not disarm.”
He spoke of the Second Amendment in our Constitution and that “the founders recognized that the final defense against tyranny is self-defense.”
“Despite any laws passed – do not disarm.”
He said, “No matter what the government ignores … you (the people) must fight back to stop this kind of apartheid.”
It's unclear where Simpson got her "100,000 white murders" claim from, but Africa Check reports that it may have originated by a South African musician, Steve Hofmeyr, who claimed that the number of white South Africans killed by blacks would fill a soccer stadium -- and is wrong. Africa Check points out that while South Africa does have a crime problem, whites are still much less likely to be murdered than other ethnicities. The number of whites murdered in South Africa between 1994 and 2012 may be as low as 6,498, and the rate of black-on-white murder is far lower than the "95 percent" Simpson claims.
One more thing: While Genocide Watch's Stanton has expressed concern about events in South Africa, he has explicitly stated that "white genocide" is not happening there now. The quotes Simpson attributes to Stanton seem unusually strident for him compared with other things he has written about South Africa, and a Google search turned up no original source for them.
We've contacted Genocide Watch to see if they will verify these quotes. We'll let you know if they respond.