The headlines on presidential approval polls have become repetitive, with “Independent voters sour,” “Trump’s approval at 40%,” “Trump’s approval rating plummets” and “Majority disapprove of President Trump.”
But an analysis of media polling practices by McLaughlinOnline suggest the media isn’t give you the real story.
A recent survey by McLaughlin took into account the “gotcha” pitfalls in polling practices, concluding Americans have a higher view of Trump than reported and want to move away from President Obama’s agenda.
McLaughlin’s poll, taken a few weeks back, found 4 in 10 voters said America is going the right direction, a significant improvement over the past four years and “by a 5 to 4 ratio, 48 percent-41 percent, voters prefer the country change and move away from the policies of Barack Obama over continuing Obama’s policies.”
Further, the results showed more people approve of Trump’s agenda and their priorities for Congress are to create jobs and keep America secure from terror.
Also, a majority, 53 percent, believe the economy is getting better, and “in spite of Congress’ failure to act yet, the majority of voters still favor repealing and replacing Obamacare.”
And, they want smaller government.
Unruh makes sure not to mention that the McLaughlin poll was taken in April -- a full two months before he wrote his story, making its results less than timely.
Unruh also makes sure not to mention that that McLaughlin describes itself as a "Republican pollster," making any claim to accuracy and nonpartisanship highly dubious. Indeed, the press release accompanying the McLaughlin poll pretty much admits it's skewing things in order to benefit Trump and his agenda while denouncing any other methodology as "media polling bias for the Democrats."
Unruh even invokes a bogus, meaningless "unscientific Internet poll by the Drudge Report" in which "92 percent of respondents said Trump was doing a 'great' or 'good' job six months into his presidency."
WND editor Joseph Farah took his own shot at poll reinterpratation in his July 23 column:
First, there’s the Reuters poll, which was portrayed as a disaster for Trump. If you run the numbers, though, they also show if the election were held today, Trump would win bigger over Hillary Clinton, even taking the popular vote bragging rights away from his opponent.
That’s right. You heard it here first.
Just look at all the numbers.
Hillary Clinton won 66 million total votes.
Donald Trump won 62 million total votes.
The Reuters poll shows, based on what respondents say now, some 12 percent of Trump voters would no longer cast their votes for him, while 88 percent would. His defectors, however, virtually all said they would not have switched their votes to Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, 86 percent of Hillary voters said they would vote for her again if the election were a do-over, while 3 percent of that total said they would indeed have switched to Trump.
When you do the calculations, here’s what you get: Hillary with 56.7 million votes and Trump with 57 million – meaning today Trump would win the popular vote against Clinton.
Curiously, Farah doesn't provide a link to the Reuters poll he's reinterpreting, so it's difficult to double-check his work. That's probably what Farah intended.
Farah goes on to laughably whine: "Do I need to add that no president in my memory has been beaten up by the media as badly as Trump has been in his first six months? Is there any dispute about that?" He doesn't mention the quarter-century of media-bashing Hillary Clinton has endured, in no small part from his own media outlet.
Farah's column was accompanied by a bogus opt-in WND poll in which 61 percent of respondents declared Trump earned a A+ for his first six months in office. Farah probably wants you to think it's unbiased.
CNS Touts 'Trump's Promised Pipeline,' Ignores Trump Cronies' Financial Ties To It Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reporter Zenny Phuong was in quite the Trump-fluffing mood for her July 28 article. Under the headline "Trump’s Promised Pipeline Passes Final Environmental Impact Review," Phuong writes:
Building the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will have a “less than significant environmental impact,” a final regulatory assessment released Friday concludes. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s report will play a major role in the Commission’s decision this coming Fall to allow construction of the infrastructure project President Donald Trump promised to deliver.
Phuong went on to repeat press-release claims from the companies involved in the pipeline, such as a claim that "the pipeline will create 17,000 new jobs and almost $3 billion in economic activity across three states."
What Phuong doesn't mention: the financial ties of some members of the Trump administration to the pipeline. DeSmogBlog reports:
One is Dan DiMicco, who served as a Senior Economic Adviser to Trump’s campaign and led the new administration’sU.S.Trade Representative transition team. He also sitson the Board of Directors of Duke Energy, one of the pipeline project co-owners.
DiMicco, the formerCEOof steel giant Nucor,metwith Trump in Trump Tower in mid-December, when he was considering DiMicco for the position ofU.S.Trade Representative. Eventually, former DeputyU.S.Trade Representative Robert Lighthizergotthe job.
Another tie can be seen between Trump presidentialcampaign adviser, U.S.Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), and his former chief-of-staff Pepper Natonski. Since the fourth quarter of 2015, Natonski has been lobbying on behalf of Dukeand its stake in “natural gas utilities regarding pipeline safety legislation and any regulatory regime affecting natural gas utilities” and serves as Director of Federal Affairs for the company,according to Politico Influence.
Yet another connection between the Atlantic Coast project and the Trump White House is Rosario Palmieri, wholobbieson behalf of the pipeline for the National Association of Manufacturers. He formerlyworked as a stafferforVice President Mike Pencewhen he served in the House of Representatives.
Apparently, such apparent favor-granting for Trump's supporters is not news at CNS, though one can easily assume it would be if Trump was a Democrat.
Of course, CNS has has always had a thing for uncritically promoting the fossil-fuel industry.
Will WND Admit It's Deceiving Readers With Seth Rich Conspiracy Theories? Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is still reliably flogging the dead, discredited Seth Rich conspiracy theory story -- for instance, this July 27 article by Alicia Powe spinning a conspiracy theory roping in such disparate elements the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., and Imran Awan, the congressional aide who's the subject of a completely different set of right-wing conspracy theories.
Still, the Seth Rich conspiracies kep blowing up in spectualar ways. The latest way is an article by NPR's David Folkenflik detailing a lawsuit private investigator Rod Wheeler -- one of WND's key sources for its conspiracy stories, whom Powe falsely insists has worked for the Rich family -- against the man who actually funded him, Republican donor and Trump supporter Ed Butowsky. In the suit, Wheeler alleges that Butowsky worked with officials in the Trump White House, including President Trump himself, to get a story on the case that prominently featured Wheeler published by Fox News as a distraction from bad news about Trump -- a story that kickstarted the latest round of conspiracy theories from WND and others. But that story was pulled a week later for making false claims, and Wheeler claims it included made-up quotes attributed to him.
This story pretty much blows up the Seth Rich story as nothing but politically motivated and factually challenged conspiracy-mongering with the Trump White House's hands all over it. Needless to say, that's not how WND has chosen to interpret it.
An anonymously written Aug. 1 WND article serves up this spin:
The controversy over the unsolved murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich one year ago reached a new level this week when an investigator looking into the Washington, D.C., homicide sued Fox News over an allegedly “fake news” report.
The move now gives the federal courts a role in sorting out a quagmire of innuendo and supposition.
Rich was murdered July 10, 2016, on a street near his Washington home. Some have speculated that Rich – who worked in the voter analysis division of the DNC – was a source of the leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential race.
In an August 2016 interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to suggest that Rich was one of his sources.
On July 22, just 12 days after Rich’s death and three days before the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks began publishing 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from top DNC officials. Some of the emails showed DNC officials conspiring to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy to help secure the party nomination for Hillary Clinton
Now, private homicide detective Rod Wheeler, who previously investigated the Rich murder for the family, has filed a lawsuit against Fox News, Fox reporter Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, alleging they created a false narrative and tried to spread false news about the death.
Wheeler also claims President Trump knew of the false statements and tried to spread false news, according to the London Daily Mail.
Talk about burying the lead -- the bombshell claim that Trump himself was involved in pushing the story is relegated to the seventh paragraph. And it's funny that WND portrays the lawsuit as "a quagmire of innuendo and supposition" when that description more aptly applies to the entire narrative WND has been pushing about Rich.
Also note that WND chose to rely on a Daily Mail writeup of the NPR story, not NPR itself (though the Daily Mail, unlike WND, did lead with the claim that Trump pushed the story).
After summarizing the lawsuit for a while, WND then fills out its article with a rehash of its conspiracy theories -- including the even more dubious Inwan Awan angle -- conveniently ignoring the fact that the political power plays outlined earlier in the article severely damages those conspiracies.
Completely missing from the article, however, is any comment from anyone at WND regarding the accusations. Joseph Farah, Alicia Powe and Co. have continued to push the story long after it was discredited, after all. WND's readers deserve to know whether it too was a player in the Fox News-Trump White House negotiations over the story.
More importantly, WND needs to explain to its readers the implications the story will have on its reporting. Will it continue to pursue a story that has been thoroughly discredited, or will admit it was deliberately misleading its readers by pushing these conspiracy theories?
Unfortunately, we suspect it's the former. The article contains a prominent link to WND's floundering GoFundMe campaign to fund its continued pushing of Seth Rich conspiracy theories. There's a consipracy to exploit, after all.
CNS Takes Shots At McCain For Health Care Repeal Vote Topic: CNSNews.com
Like a good adequately servile pro-Trump "news" outlet, CNSNews.com took some shots at Republican John McCain for voting against a Republican bill designed to undo the Affordable Care Act while offering nothing in its stead.
The headline on Susan Jones' article after the vote read, "McCain Comes Through for Democrats, Casts Deciding ‘No’ Vote on GOP Health Care Bill." For her part, Jones pointedly noted "the 49 Republicans who kept their promise to their constituents" by voting for a largely empty bill.
Jones devoted a separate article to highlighting Trump's tweet that "3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down.
CNS hurled another spiteful zinger at McCain in the form of a video compilation by Craig Millward of "times when McCain called for Obamacare to be repealed and replaced."
Looking so spiteful and butthurt is more than a little unprofessional, but that's never stopped CNS before.
WND Drags Out That Malicious 'Transgender' Photo Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily justloves to maliciously smear transgenders by illustrating stories about them with a photo it stole from the Associated Press of a guy in a dress and heels who is not transgender (which makes its usage fake news).
The latest example comes from WND's coverage of President Trump's substance-free decree that transgender should not serve in the military. A July 26 article by Greg Corombos interviewing Peter Sprigg of the anti-LGBT hate group Family Research Council praising the decision includes, yes, that malicious photo:
Note that the photo has no credit. WND surely owes the AP a lot of money for its use given how many article WND has attached it to.
MRC Is Mad Media Reported Facts About Where Trump Products Are Made Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Aly Nielsen spends a July 24 post complaining that the "liberal media" ruined President Trump's "Made In America Week" by letting the facts get in the way:
The White House declared the week of July 16, “Made in America” week to celebrate U.S. manufacturing -- a continuance of President Donald Trump’s “America First” campaign focus. But ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows minimized the administration’s focus, mentioning it only one night of the week and used it to criticize Trump.
Products manufactured in the 50 states, including golf clubs, donuts, cowboy hats, blankets and firetrucks, were displayed on the lawn and throughout the White House on June 17. Trump also signed a declaration making July 17, “Made in America Day” to celebrate goods manufactured in the U.S.
But for ABC and CBS, “Made in America” was just Trump trying to distract people from Russia. CBSEvening Newsinterim anchor Anthony Mason accused Trump of using “Made in America” as a way to “change the subject today from Russia to America,” on July 17.
Only NBCNightly Newsfocused on “Made in America” without bringing up Russia.
“President Trump today kicked off his ‘Made in America’ week to promote U.S. manufacturing. It was the president’s ‘America First’ messaging that helped him win the election,” NBCNightly Newsanchor Lester Holt said.
NBC chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson said Trump was “focusing on what got him there: jobs and manufacturing.”
“On Made in America week, critics counter, the president never put his money where his mouth is while running his own business,” Jackson also said referring to Trump family products often imported from outside the U.S.
At no point does Nielsen dispute the accuracy of the "liberal media's" reporting on how Trump's own goods are not manufactured in America or the week's fairly obvious attempt to use the week to distract from the growing scandals surrounding the Trump White House. She's merely complaining they were reported at all -- and, by extension, complaining that the media isn't serving as loyal stenographers for Trump.
Perhaps Nielsen should turn her eyes to the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, where Trump stenography is Job 1.
Scaramucci On The Job Just Long Enough for ConWeb Tributes To Him Topic: The ConWeb
The abrupt departure of Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director after just 10 days on the job meant that the digital ink was barely dry on ConWeb tributes to his arrival.
Jerry Cave enthused in a July 29 Accuracy in Media column:
If you work in the White House and do not have the message yet,Scary Muchois there to scare people straight on the issue of leaking. And he is not messing around.
He is sending a message to the staff that none are above suspicion or scrutiny. This is not the Obama Justice Department, where anything went, nor the Hillary Clinton State Department, where bribes and lawlessness reigned. It’s illegal to leak, and if you do so from the Trump White House now, you will be gone…no matter who you are.
Scaramucci is not in Washington to make friends. He is here to clean up the operations of the White House and clean out those who are not on the president’s side.
He correctly identified Priebus as a leaker and as someone who did not support the candidate and brought people into the White House who also were neverTrumpers. Those people are now on the shortest of leashes.
Washington thinks it can beat anybody, even these brash, rude New Yorkers. These New Yorkers get things done. I like their chances.
Cave offers no evidence that Scaramucci or anyone else "correctly identified" Priebus as a leaker.
Not to be outdone in the suck-up department was Ray Negron, who wrote in a July 27 Newsmax column:
Anthony Scaramucci now walks with President Trump. We are better off for it.
Whenever I reached out to Mr. Scaramucci he was always there for me. He helped to make my radio show on ESPNDeportes a better and more interesting show.
Selfishly I will miss him. I will miss his knowledge in sports that he brought to the show. I will miss how he could give and take fun-loving banter with Reggie Jackson.
I know how busy he will be but I hope he can find the time to come on the show again.
Anthony really was a big fan favorite on ESPN "Impact." Even though he was always on demand at Fox and CNBC, he always found the time to come to our show and have fun with us. He never saw us as the little guy.
Thank you Anthony Scaramucci, we will always be grateful for that. I know our country needs you more.
It looks like Scaramucci will suddenly have plenty of time to appear on Negron's show.
NEW ARTICLE: The Trump Flip on Unemployment Reporting Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com goes from cherry-picking negative numbers about jobless figures under Obama to focusing on the positive ones now that Trump is president. Read more >>
Fake News: WND Claims 'Obama Holdovers' At State Scrubbing ISIS Genocide Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh thinks he has a scoop, according to a July 28 article:
The Obama administration repeatedly fudged on the issue of Islam.
Barack Obama himself said Muslims were a key to the founding of the nation and after all, the U.S. wasn’t a Christian nation.
Muslim advocates, including some fairly radical, were installed in influential positions in Washington.
Never were the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” to be used together, it seemed.
Now, a report is confirming that those left in the government, and there are many, from Obama’s tenure are busy trying to erase the references to ISIS’ “genocide” of Christians in the Middle East.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that is, well, a little upset.
“In a startling revelation, news is breaking this week that Obama holdovers within the State Department are actively attempting to scrub its records to remove any mention of the ISIS genocide against Christians,” the organization reported.
“This is outrageous and the ACLJ has had enough, so we are preparing a new set of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out why – and to expose deep state operatives who would use the delay of confirming new State Department officials as cover to strip legal protections from Christians facing genocide.”
Unruh's introduction includes at least one blatant lie, that Obama said "the U.S. wasn’t a Christian nation." He did no such thing.
But it appears Unruh's larger claim -- that "Obama holdovers" at State are eliminating any reference to genocide by ISIS -- is, shall we say, fake news. He's simply regurgitating press releases from the right-wing ACLJ, who apparently does not name any of the alleged "Obama holdovers" purportedly doing this.
How do we know? Even the Obama-haters at Breitbart wouldn't back up the story. Former CNSNews.com reporter Penny Starr, now at Breitbart, writes that the State Department said the claim was "categorically false," adding:
There is no evidence on the State Department website suggesting the removal of references to genocide. One report titled “The Global Coalition – Working to Defeat ISIS” does mention genocide and explicitly states that holding the Islamic State accountable for genocide remains a priority for the department.
“Internationally, coalition partners are exploring ways to also hold ISIS members accountable for international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity with international investigative mechanisms,” the document states.
Looks like this is another piece of fake news from a "news" organization that has published somuchof it.
MRC, CNS Diss Caitlyn Jenner By Mangling Her Name And Gender Topic: Media Research Center
It is the style policy of most major news organizations that transgenders are identified by the name they prefer and the gender by which they live publicly.
The Media Research Center's purported "news" division, CNSNews.com, does not follow that policy, mostly because it hates the LGBT community. Thus we have a July 17 article by Annabel Scott repeatedly referring to "Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jenner" and identifying Jenner as "he."
Scott did not explain why she deviated from standard journalistic practice.
Even less bound to standard journalistic practice is the MRC itself. Transphobic sports blogger Jay Maxsonmangled Jenner's identity further in a July 27 NewsBusters post in which he referenced "Olympic decathlon champion Bruce (nee Caitlyn) Jenner."
Maxson appears not to know that "nee" means formerly, which means Maxson is falsely claiming that Jenner changed her name from Caitlyn to Bruce, instead of the other way around.
That's not the only thing Maxson got wrong, though; he also claimed that Jenner was among "lefties" who criticized President Trump's declaration of a ban on transgenders in the military. In fact, according to Scott's CNS article, Jenner has been a Trump supporter and says he believes in limited government.
AIM's Newest Writer Follows in Kincaid's Conspiratorial Footsteps, Declares Media Literacy Is 'Liberal Indoctrination' Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid has disappeared from Accuracy in Media.
An AIM employee for more than 30 years, Kincaid hasn't written an article for AIM in a month, but near as we can tell, neither AIM nor chairman Don Irvine has made any statement regarding his job status. Curiously, though, it has been begging for "freelance writers to write about media bias for our website" on its Twitter account. Kincaid is no longer listed as employee on AIM's website, though he was in June (editor Roger Aronoff has similarly disappeared)
If Kincaid is gone, though, AIM has an apparent replacement in Brian McNicoll (though it appears he too is a freelancer and not a full-time AIM employee).McNicoll proves he's following in the conspiratorial steps of Kincaid with a July 25 column in which he rants that libraries are engaging in "liberal indoctrination" by teaching people how to understand the media and be on the lookout for fake news:
Sponsored content can be hard for anyone to tell apart … most is written to look like news copy and contains information that can be relied upon as long as the sourcing is indicated. And questioning the source of a photo is a second-level operation for most journalists, let alone middle schoolers.
But this test is being used as a pretext to dramatically expand K-12 teachers’ ability to influence children on how to pick sources, which to rely on, what constitutes authority and which affiliations compromise objectivity.
There are workbooks and programs. There are grants and curricula. The Agency of Education’s 2014 Quality Standards now call for one full-time library media specialist and sufficient staff” to implement such programs.
There’s a new app from Google called Internet Awesome that uses games to “get kids thinking about what makes the best password, how to behave online and how to sort real from fake information.”
It even has a name – media literacy. The people who bring you declining educational results despite increased spending now want to teach our children their version of how to interpret content on the Internet. Given their political predilections, this bears watching.
Why is this even a question when we’re talking about a presidential election? Isn’t it up to voters to decide which information is useful?
Besides, according to a study out last week from the Newseum Institute, Americans’ trust in what they read on the Internet is declining anyway. Amazingly, people have begun to realize all on their own that those Nigerian bank scams are not real.
There’s a reason two entities firmly on the left – educators and Facebook – suddenly have decided to help us improve our media literacy. It wants us to learn to discern the truth as they see it.
“We want students to come to conclusions that are not only true but personally meaningful and relevant,” one of the librarians said.
And now they want to guide them to that conclusion. What could go wrong?
Probably a lot less than what could go wrong if the likes of McNicoll and AIM try to do so.
With Transgender Decree, CNS Is Back on the Trump Plantation Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com may have briefly left the Trump plantation over the president's attacks on Jeff Sessions, but it came running back when Trump decreed that transgenders should no longer serve in the military.
As longtime LGBT-haters themselves, CNS quickly embraced Trump's decision. Susan Jones' article on Trump's tweets did surprisingly include reaction from critics, although she wrongly labeled Tom Perez as head of the "Democrat National Committee" (using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is a longtime conservative insult of Democrats, even though "Democratic National Committee" is the official name and Jones is actually violating journalistic standard practice by not using the actual name).
Gage Cohen followed up with a blog post noting that Trump's decree "has the potential to save taxpayers up to $8.4 million dollars per year" in military medical costs. He didn't mention that the military already spends five times that amount on Viagra pills alone and 10 times that mount on erectile dysfunction treatments in general.
CNS published a column by self-proclaimed ex-transgender-turned-anti-transgender activist (but who was actually just misdiagnosed) Walt Heyer and also a blog post by Craig Bannister redundantly summarizing Heyer's column.
CNS also published a column by the right-wing Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson praising Trump and bashing transgenders, asserting that "biology isn't bigotry, and we need a sober and honest assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong."
And of course, no CNS gay-bashing would be complete without managing editor Michael W. Chapman quoting his favorite bigot, Franklin Graham, ranting that we don't need people in the military "who are confused about their gender" and insisting that "President Trump is laser focused on making our military better and stronger. ... Pray for him as he faces critics and opposition."
WND Reporter Ramps Up the Trump-Fluffing Topic: WorldNetDaily
The editor's note at the top of Garth Kant's July 16 WorldNetDaily article, gushingly headlined "The 5 pillars of Trump foreign policy unveiled," stated that it would be the "first in a series of special reports by WND White House reporter Garth Kant examining President Donald Trump’s foreign policy." This being WND, of course, there was not of lot of "examining" and much more defense of -- and praise for -- Trump.
To give an example of his fealty to Trump, Kant begins by prominently citing none other than dubious Trump toady "Dr. Sebastian Gorka" to baselessly assert that Trump would "fill the vacuum created by eight years of feckless Obama lack of leadership." Kant knows how to suck up to Gorka and help him overcompensate: by calling him "Dr." even though he has only a Ph.D., not a medical degree, and that Gorka's doctoral thesis for a Hungarian university has been widely mocked as unworthy of a undergraduate student in the U.S.
Kant's article was filled with more gushing, delcaring at one point that Trump's "moral clarity means returning to such basic concepts as an objective right and wrong, and good and evil. And the imperative to confront evil." The fact that Trump apparently has no personal sense of right and wrong doesn't seem to bother Kant.
Regarding Trump's speech in Poland, Kant slobbered that the president "was not afraid to defend Western values, again and again" and that "The speech was hailed as soaring and inspirational by the president’s supporters." (Kant himself included, presumably.) He huffed regarding the speech's critics:
In marked contrast, the president’s critics in the establishment media took his unabashed defense of Western civilization as an ethnocentric and religiously bigoted defense of racist white nationalism.
However, the president did not denigrate other cultures. He lauded the accomplishments of the West. He even described Muslims as partners in combatting the terrorist threat to the West.
Kant didn't mention that his own employer effectively agreed with the ethnocentric bent of Trump's speech.
Kant concluded with even more gushing:
Trump is brash. But he is also the most successful businessman to ever lead the nation. He is unlike any other president, ever. That makes him a mystery. But it also makes him something that may portend great potential.
Perhaps the most apt word to describe the man is unique.
Gorka has stressed that Trump is “a very different kind of president.”
A look at that, and just how important it is, in the second part of this series.
Needless to say, that July 18 follow-up continued the gushing, with Kant complaining that the media won't fawn over Trump the way he does:
Indeed, as the six-month-old administration forges ahead in its efforts to reverse Obama-era failures and implement a broadly appealing “America First” agenda, the media, especially in the White House, are constantly trying to apply the brakes.
The average American might be stunned to witness in person just how transparently top White House reporters in daily press briefings are dedicated to probing for anything possibly detrimental to the president, constantly looking for an opening and a line of attack to damage the administration. And how visibly upset they become when stymied. It’s more than being a watchdog – more like an attack dog.
The visceral dislike of the administration briefly boiled over after the White House made a series of subtle adjustments that eventually did turn down the heat, including making networks occasionally turn off the cameras during daily press briefings.
This from a so-called reporter whose dislike of President Obama and his administration was so visceral that he used WND to spread lies about Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
This time around, the Trump suck-up Kant is quoting is Newt Gingrich, to whom Kant gives an uncritical platform to tout how he "came up with a series of principles to help explain Trumpism, which may be equally useful in understanding the president’s foreign policy strategies.
Kant gushed even further about Trump's "uniqueness," declaring that "Trump had effectively turned the overwhelming liability of an intimidating adversarial press into an asset by feeding the networks’ hunger for ratings. Yet his appeal was so unique, the major media could not understand it."
Sounds like there's a certain White House Kant is auditioning to get a job in.
MRC Tries to Play The Clinton Equivocation to Defect From Trump Jr.'s Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
The Clinton Equivocation to deflect from Republican -- and now Trump -- scandals will never die at the Media Resarch Center, apparently. Geoffrey Dickens writes in a July 13 MRC post (boldface his):
The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening news shows, in the last four nights, have been dominated by Donald J. Trump Jr.’s 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower – a meeting in which apparently no favors, money or meaningful information was exchanged – but those same shows all but ignored Hillary Clinton’s Russia-Uranium scandal back in 2015.
Author Peter Schweizer, in his 2015 bookClinton Cash, broke the story that a Canadian uranium company, seeking approval of a sale to the Russian government from then Secretary of State Clinton’s State Department, had donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
At the time, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was considered the favorite to win the Democratic nomination but the networks couldn’t care less. Total amount of Big Three evening news network coverage of that story in over two years?Just 3 minutes and 1 second.
However, in just four nights the Big Three networks have swamped their evening news shows with62 minutes and 18 secondsof Donald Trump Jr. coverage, or20 timesmore than what they devoted to the Clinton Foundation uranium deal scandal.
Dickens leaves out a few inconvenient facts in recounting this -- namely, that this has since been revealed to be a partisan attack. As we've noted, Schweizer's book was funded by a group called the Government Accountability Institute, which was headed by one Steve Bannon, who later joined the campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, and is now a top aide to Trump in the White House.
Dickens asserts that, according to Schweizer, "Bill Clinton was in Moscow for a particularly well-compensated speech" around the time that the deal was being considered. But as PolitiFact points out, the amount of money paid for that speech was not out of line with similar Clinton speaking engagements.
Dickens did concede that the uranium deal had to be signed off by "a committee, including Clinton’s State Department, but also including the Departments of Treasury, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Energy, plus the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and Technology," as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which meant that Clinton by herself could not either approve or stop the deal. But Dickens then claimed that Schweizer "countered that argument" during an interview; in fact, all Schweizer did was more conspiracy-mongering.
In other words, there's no actual scandal here, no matter how much the MRC quotes a Trump-associated hitman to claim otherwise.
The MRC's Clinton Equivocation is becoming a crutch to use instead of conducting genuine "media research."
Dubious WND Doc Rants About Filthy, Disease-Ridden Immigrants Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Elizabeth Lee Vliet -- a doctor affiliated with the far-riught-fringe Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- plays the filthy-immigrant card (as she loves to do) in a July 21 WorldNetDaily column:
Since 2005, Americans have been warned about microscopic border crossers carried in with refugees and illegal immigrants, bringing diseases previously eradicated or rarely seen here. When not simply ignored by media and health officials, physicians and others sounding the alarm have been attacked as xenophobes.
Now we’re seeing these prescient predictions come true, most prominently in Germany, since 2015 when Angela Merkel began allowing more than 2 million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to flood into her country.
U.S. and German citizens are put at significant risk by the politically correct acceptance of unscreened immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of infectious diseases, many difficult or impossible to treat. Yet authorities in both countries have failed to fully inform the public of the dangers.
According to the July 2017 Infectious Disease Epidemiology Annual Reportby the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany has seen a surge in chicken pox, cholera, dengue fever, tuberculosis, leprosy, measles, malaria, meningococcal diseases, hemorrhagic fevers, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, typhus, toxoplasmosis, tularemia, trichinellosis, whooping cough, and many fungal and parasitic infections.
Vliet mentions nothing about vaccinations, which if done to the level recommended by the vast majority of medical experts not affiliated with the AAPS, would provide herd immunity that would protect Americans from many of these diseases. Perhaps that's because the AAPS opposes mandatory vaccination. Indeed, as we've documented, some disease outbreaks in immigrant communities are caused by outsider anti-vaccine activists spreading fear about vaccines.
Perhaps Vliet should address that issue -- and confront the AAPS about it -- before going on another anti-immigrant tirade. Ah, who are we kidding? She's totally dedicated to immigrant-bashing to address that issue:
Even healthy immigrants burden the system with social costs, such as housing, education and food stamps – costs borne by taxpaying workers whose own wages are depressed by competition from a glut of low-paid foreigners. Illegal immigrants are estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $17 billion per year. That $17 billion is in addition to the costs for those allowed here legally under “refugee” status, for which we do not have reliable public estimates.
Liberal and progressive politicians like to say, “America is the land of immigrants.” In the past, this meantlegalimmigrants who follow our screening procedures for illness and other laws and who are coming to America to be part ofourculture.
Medical screening was one of the core purposes of the Ellis Island immigration center in New York. New arrivals were examined, quarantined if needed, or sent back to their country of origin if they posed a risk to Americans.
To protect the health and safety of American citizens, we must reinstate our prior customary medical screening as outlined on our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.
For national security and medical concerns, President Trump is correct to enforce our immigration laws, with careful vetting of those seeking to come to America to live and work.
Vliet doesn't mention that Trump wants to cut the CDC's budget by 17 percent.