The main story by Susan Jones began by touting the number of jobs created, as expected. She did surprisingly acknowledge in the third paragraph the low labor force participation rate, but unlike her reporting on this during the Obama years she quickly dismisses its importance by claiming it was being "held down in part by a wave of Baby Boomer retirements." It was during the Obama years too, but Jones rarely bothered to explain it, and never so far up in a Obama-era jobless numbers article.
CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey contributed his usual article on manufacturing jobs under the headline "Manufacturing Jobs Hit Highest Level Since Obama’s Inauguration." Jeffrey omits the relevant fact that the economy was in free fall at the time of Obama's inauguration and gives Obama no credit for the fact that manufacturing jobs are up about 1 million from the depth of the recession.
Then -- as if he read our article noting that he hadn't written about black unemployment since Trump took office, presumably because he now had to make Trump look good -- managing editor Michael W. Chapman wrote about it for the first time during the Trump presidency, making sure to figure out a pro-Trump spin:
Although the national unemployment rate for July was 4.3%, the unemployment rate for black workers was nearly double that of white workers, but it was also at a rate for blacks not seen since December 2000, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
In addition, the June unemployment rate for blacks of 7.1% was nearly at a level only seen once in the last 45 years -- 7.0% in April 2000.
Needless to say, Chapman gives Obama no credit whatsoever for cutting the black unemployment rate by more than half from the depths of the recession (and, like Jeffrey, fails to mention there even was a recession that hindered employment).
As has been a staple in recent months, CNS also published an op-ed by the Heritage Foundation's Timothy Doescher touting the low unempolyment rate -- claiming without evidence that "gains have likely come from reductions in harmful regulations that make it easier to run businesses in the U.S." -- and cheerleading for Trump policies that would purportedly cut the unemployment rate even further
One of WorldNetDaily's favorite things to write about is the Ark Encounter, Ken Ham's attempt to indoctrinate people into creationism by building a museum in the shape of a full-sized ark. Last month, for example, WND touted (in an anonymously written article, of course) Ham's declaration that he would "take back the rainbow" from the gays by lighting the Ark Encounter in the colors of the rainbow.
In a July 29 article, WND's anonymous writer strikes again for the Ark Encounter, under the headline "As it was in the days of Noah ... Ark Encounter fights fake news":
A columnist who writes for Forbes has ridiculed a recent series headlines purporting to address a tax liability issue for the Christian Ark Encounter tourist attraction in Kentucky that features of replica, built according to biblical dimensions, of the Ark.
In fact, he notes that the Ark Encounter’s complaint of unfair treatment in the media “might have some merit.”
One headline cited by Forbes’ columnist Peter J. Reilly said, “Ken Ham Sells Ark Encounter Land To Himself for $10 To Avoid Paying Taxes.”
But Reilly said, “I don’t see that as a fair characterization as to what happened.”
At no point does the article itself repeat the headline's contention that the stories about the Ark Encounter were "fake news" -- perhaps because they weren't. The article admits that the basic facts are true: the Ark Encounter did sell itself to a related entity for $10 in an apparent attempt to excape paying a 50-cent-per-ticket safety tax in the town where the museum is located, then sold itself back when the tax stopped being an issue.
What's going on here is spin. Forbes columnist Reilly -- whose column WND curiously does not link to -- relies heavily on repeating the Ark Encounter's side of the story, going so far as to reprint its entire statement on the issue. Reilly didn't talk to any city offical, and neither did WND.
In other words, there's no "fake news" going on here, just WND serving as compliant stenographers for a favored source. Pretty ironic considering how much actualfakenews WND publishes.
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Transgender Freakout Edition Topic: Media Research Center
-- Mysterious sports blogger Jay Maxson was upset that a columnist who defended Maxson's bete noire, Colin Kaepernick, is transgender, callously mocking the writer for having "Jennered" over to "womanhood":
Douglas Goetsch was once a single, cross-dressing poet and a teacher at the University of Iowa, New York University and Western Kentucky. Battling depression and craving femininity, he broke up with his girlfriend and "Jennered" over to "womanhood." Douglas is now "Diana" and "she" just penned a vicious attack on America and much more, all in the name of Colin Kaepernick.
Only at the MRC could defending freedom of expression be a "vicious attack on America." And as he has before, Maxson cheer's Kaepernick's current state of unemployment as a NFL quarterback.
As major media organizations actively advance the normalization and celebration of the LGBTQ agenda, NBCNews.com’s pro-LGBTQ propaganda arm “NBC OUT” recently published a list of LGBTQ book recommendations.
The July 14 piece titled “15 Recently Released LGBTQ Books for Your Summer Reading List,” contained both fiction and non-fiction reading suggestions. The lead paragraph explained: “From light beach reads to educational nonfiction, here are summer reading recommendations from NBC Out’s contributors and social followers.”
Nitzberg, of course, is part of the MRC's anti-LGBTQ propaganda division.
-- Karen Townsend raged that "For the first time to my knowledge, a network television show has brought in a sexual relationship between a transgender woman and a man," on the CBS show "Doubt." She further raged, "This is Hollywood continuing to force regular America into believing sexuality is fluid and gender change is normal, no matter if it includes surgical procedures to make it so, as in the case of transgenders." Shockingly, though, Townsend refers to actor Laverne Cox by her preferred pronoun of she (though we suspect that was just an editing mistake).
-- Brad Wilmouth takes a stab at justifying President Trump's proposed ban on transgenders in the military by making an economies-of-scale argument in favor of treating erectile dysfunction:
Beck's $50 million number was a reference to reports that the military spends $41.6 million a year on Viagra, $22.8 million on Cialis, and $8.4 million on sex change treatments.
It did not seem to occur to ether Cabrera or her guest that the amount spent on erectile dysfunction treatment may be more economically spread out over many more servicemen as opposed to sex treatments for transgenders who only make up less than 0.5 percent of service members.
-- Clay Waters bashed a New York Times reporter for daring to tell the stories of transgender service members:
The New York Times’ Pentagon reporter Helene Cooper evidently finds the personal stories of transgender military service members much more compelling than all that boring stuff about national defense and fighting terrorism.
Cooper’s emotional, supportive tone was quite different from her dry, almost dismissive mentions of what the military is actually designed to do: Sending soldiers into war zones, and killing terrorists[.]
Fake News: WND Profiles Twitter Bot As Actual Trump Supporter Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh fawningly wrote in a May 14 WorldNetDaily article:
Nicole Mincey is black, comes from a liberal Democrat background and watched closely what Barack Obama did for blacks during his presidency.
So why is she now running the online ProTrump45 store featuring “Adorable Deplorable” shirts, “Make America Great Again” caps, “Deplorable Lives Matter” slogans and more?
Because she’s black, comes from a liberal Democrat background and watched closely what Barack Obama did for blacks during his presidency.
“Honestly, the reason I switched to being a Republican was I realized Obama didn’t necessarily help black people during his presidency like he promised,” she told WND.
She told WND her background made her ideally suited to be a Democrat.
“I am from Newark, New Jersey. I was raised in a bad neighborhood,” she said.
But she became an ex-Democrat because of the party’s refusal to adopt “self-responsibility.”
“Everyone is a victim in their eyes and you can’t succeed unless the government helps you on someone else’s expense. I went to a charter high school where we constantly received threats to [be] shut down by Democratic politicians. We had to always do fundraisers to stay afloat.”
She said she was motivated by a desire to break liberal stereotypes.
“The media has painted Republican conservatives as old, white people that are racist. I’m a young black … college student that is female. Liberals see me and don’t know what to say because they can’t throw the racist card at me.”
While she used to be a regular college student with a job, now she’s “a college student with a small business and a job.”
It appears none of that stuff about Mincey's background is true, because "Nicole Mincey" as profiled by Unruh apparently doesn't exist.
Writer Bob Schooley looked into Mincey after Trump retweeted a post from the ProTrump45 Twitter account, and he found that "Mincey" appears to be nothing more than a Twitter bot designed to promote the retail store, and the pictures on the account claiming to be of her are nothing more than repurposed stock photos. It's unclear from where the picture WND is representing as Mincey that WND used in Unruh's article came.
Further, while there is an actual Nicole Mincey who is a college student from New Jersey, it appears that, according to Heavy, she's the victim of identity theft -- her name and Facebook account were used without her permission to create pro-Trump websites.
After the fake Mincey was exposed, the content of the @ProTrump45 Twitter account was moved to an account named @AlexandriaM0ra (with the same stock photo), and the @ProTrump45 account now claims to be "available for purchase" (a violation of Twitter terms of service).
It's obvious that Unruh never actually talked to the Minsey of ProTrump45 in person -- probably just exchanged emails -- and certainly never made no attempt to verify the person's identity. He and his WND editors simply decided that the story of "liberal black Democrat becomes Trump supporter" was too good to fact-check.
Which makes this yetanotherinstance of fake news published by WND. And, no, don't expect WND to correct the record and admit its error -- the story was in line with WND's pro-Trump editorial agenda, and it makes no apologies for being so biased that it publishes fake news.
CNS Op-Ed Writer: Donald Jr.'s Get-Together With Russian Lawyer Just A 'Silly Little Meeting' Topic: CNSNews.com
How in the tank is CNSNews.com for the Trump administration? It's even publishing op-eds seeking to exonerate Donald Trump Jr. for meeting with a Kremin-lnnked Russian lawyer who reportedly promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.
A July 21 CNS op-ed by Republican author Craig Shirley is headlined "How Could a Meeting Like Trump Jr.’s Happen? Easy: Campaigns Are Circuses," in which Shirley gives a pass to Donald Jr. because weird things happen during politcal campaigns:
What seems inexplicable on the outside looks like just the usual chaos to insiders.
Many years ago, a friend of mine — let’s call him Ed — was managing a congressional race. He was interviewing a young woman for a job with the campaign. While perusing her resume, Ed asked her if she had any special skills. Unhesitatingly, she replied, “Yes. I’m clairvoyant.”
Taken aback, Ed asked if she could give him a demonstration, and again she replied yes, and, as a demonstration of her talents, she said, “I see the two of us in that motel down the street making love this afternoon.”
Ed later told me, “And you know what? She was right!”
When I heard of the meeting Trump campaign staffers had with a Russian lawyer last year, like many of my brethren who have worked in campaigns, I was not surprised.
Weirdos and politics go together like peas and carrots: Strange, bizarre meetings. Strange, bizarre people. Clandestine operations. Inexplicable decisions. Things that in the light of day look strange, but in the heat of the moment seem perfectly rational. People often do things in politics that later can’t be explained. At least not always reasonably.
To paraphrase an old educator and philosopher, “Those who can, do, those who can’t, become over-the-top bell ringers.” Many will never know how fun it really is. Or how a silly little meeting with a Russian lawyer could possibly be just that — a silly little meeting and nothing more. The bystanders and alarmists scream the sky is falling, it seems, to give a little excitement to their otherwise mundane and limiting lives.
Stu Spencer, a longtime political adviser to Reagan, once said, “Working in politics is like running away and joining the circus.” And indeed, it is. It’s just not for everybody.
So the Trump campaign hands should pay these critics no mind. They will never know how much fun it is to be in the crazy arena, to know victory and defeat.
What would old educators and philosophers say about people who try to dismiss a get-together with a representative of an American adversary promising dirt on an opponent as a "silly little meeting"?
Obama Still Lives Rent-Free Inside Joseph Farah's Head Topic: WorldNetDaily
Obama says his birthday is tomorrow, Aug. 4.
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. I just don’t know. To me, the jury is still out.
Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn’t. I just don’t know. To me, the jury is still out.
Why am I so stubborn on this point?
The actual evidence is thin, and Obama did everything humanly possible to avoid proving his constitutional eligibility and human authenticity through the first three years of his presidency by producing a legitimate birth certificate.
Obama and his supporters have a lot of trouble being honest – telling the truth and knowing right from wrong.
I don’t believe a word that has ever come out of the mouth of Barack Obama.
I don’t believe a word he has ever written or was ghostwritten on his behalf.
I don’t believe any of the self-aggrandizement. I don’t believe a word of the hype.
Even if I believed his birthday is tomorrow, I wouldn’t send him a card, I wouldn’t wish him well, and I wouldn’t acknowledge any of his so-called accomplishments. For me, it will take a miracle to undo eight years of damage he inflicted on a great country.
I don’t wish him ill. I just don’t have any respect for him or his ideas. What he has decided to do in his post-presidency is even more contemptible than what he did with the reins of illegitimate power – serving, as he does, as a “shadow president,” intentionally undermining, at every turn, his duly elected successor.
I don’t think you can point to another U.S. president who ever did that.
It’s like he doesn’t know what else to do with himself except for being a national community organizer.
Am I bitter?
I like the United States of America. I like the idea of it. I like the concept – a nation under the rule of law, not the rule of men. I never liked the notion of a “fundamental transformation” of our country. Only someone who hates America could even hatch such a nightmarish thought. And his only notable accomplishment in life was coming very close to carrying it out.
Not from me.
Not this year, not next year nor the year after that.
No regrets from here on challenging everything Obama ever uttered, enacted or planned.
CNS Reporter Buries The Lead, Hides Fact Trump Is Wrong About Amazon Taxes Topic: CNSNews.com
Trump stenographer Susan Jones does her Trump stenography thing in a July 25 CNSNews.com article:
"The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad....." President Trump tweeted Monday night.
Then came two more tweets:
-- "So many stories about me in the @washingtonpost are Fake News. They are as bad as ratings challenged @CNN. Lobbyist for Amazon and taxes?"
-- "Is Fake News Washington Post being used as a lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly?"
This is not the first time Trump has bashed the "Amazon Washington Post," the newspaper purchased by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos in 2013.
On June 23, Trump tweeted: "The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!"
Trump's criticism of Amazon dates back to the campaign. On Dec. 7, 2015, when he was running for president, Trump tweeted: "The @washingtonpost, which loses a fortune, is owned by @JeffBezos for purposes of keeping taxes down at his no profit company, @amazon."
But it's not until the very last paragraph of her article that Jones makes a surprising admission: "And for the record, Amazon.com states on its website that it does collect sales tax on items sold by it or its subsidiaries nationwide, except in the five states that do not levy sales taxes."
That's right -- Trump's attacks on Amazon and taxes are false. Shouldn't that have been the lead of Jones' article? "Trump falsely attacks Amazon over taxes" is far more newsworthy than "Trump tweets again," according to any standard of journalistic news judgment.
MRC Pretends Crisis Pregnancy Centers Don't Mislead Women Topic: Media Research Center
Storiesabound of crisis pregnancy centers -- typically run by anti-abortion activists -- misleading women who visit them with fearmongering about abortion and even emotional coercion. But the Media Research Center is actively trying to deny that fact.
In a May 31 MRC post, for instance, Sarah Stites claimed that "while outlets like MSNBC have questioned whether crisis pregnancy centers are 'misleading,' and host Rachel Maddow calls them 'fake abortion clinics,' these organizations provide women with help and support during difficult times."
A few days later, Stites asserted that it was a "false narrative" to point out the pretty well established fact that "crisis pregnancy centers are misleading, coercive and dangerous to women." She went on to play stenographer for a crisis pregnancy center fighting a law requiring that they post a sign stating that they don't perform abortions," whining that it was "compelled speech" and that "the receptionist says ‘we don’t provide abortions,’ but she says it with her own voice, not because she’s been forced to" is good enough. Stites framed this reasonable disclosure as "hostility to religion," even though she provided no evidence the law specifically singles out any religion.
In a June 23 post, Matthew Balan dismissed the documented tactics of crisis pregnancy centers as nothing but "left-wing spin."
The latest instance is a July 25 post by Tom Blumer complaining about an Associated Press article about a similar law in Seattle:
In this story, the AP's headline writer and the story's reporter wouldn't even allow the words "crisis pregnancy centers" to appear without including scare quotes which explicitly question the term's legitimacy — even though there are at least nine national networks of honest-to-goodness crisis pregnancy centers.
Crisis pregnancy centers typically provide women with the following free services: pregnancy tests, caring and confidentialcounseling from trained professionals, medical referrals, abortion and adoption information, information about medical insurance or government assistance, temporary shelter, and much more.
You ... can likely find a crisis pregnancy center near you in the yellow pages of your local phonebook (e.g., under "Abortion Alternatives" or "Pregnancy Counseling").
The supposed need for this regulation was an investigation by undercover "trained volunteer college and law students" claiming that "the centers give medically inaccurate information about abortion and some don't tell patients that they don't provide abortions or make referrals involving abortion and contraception."
Care Net of Puget Sound, which has six crisis pregnancy centers in the region and is mentioned in the AP report, blasted that contention as "an absolute lie." Of course they don't provide abortions (and I'm sure they clearly tell patients that), and of course, as pro-life-driven, they won't make such referrals. The obvious question about this "investigation" should be: Where's the James O'Keefe-level video proof, with all the raw footage?
Given how O'Keefe's "video proof" has been demonstrated to be misleadingly edited, nobody wants that kind of "proof," and Blumer shouldn't either.
Also, Blumer's description of "what crisis pregnancy centers do" is copy-and-pasted directly from the website of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, which arguably has a bias on the issue in promoting such groups. And some of those "trained professionals" -- as trained by Care Net, at least, are apparently trained how to shepherd "broken" women toward Christ, which certainly seems far afield from its stated mission of helping pregnant women.
That sounds a lot like misleading women to us. The MRC should stop pretending crisis pregnancy centers don't do this, or that it's "left-wing spin" to point that fact out.
WND Buries The Collapse Of Its Seth Rich Conspiracy Theories Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted that WorldNetDaily is highly reluctant to discuss the fact that its Seth Rich conspiracy theories are imploding even more than they have in the past, thanks to a lawsuit by private investigator Rod Wheeler against his Republican benefactor, Ed Butowsky, claiming that Butowsky worked with Fox News and the Trump White House to published a discredited story on the case that misquoted him.
Alicia Powe's Aug. 2 WND article is a prime example of this. It leads by stoking the collapsing conspiracy with an unsubstantiated "bombshell" from "Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh" that "the DNC emails obtained by WikiLeaks stopped pouring in after the mysterious murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich in 2016."
It's not until the 15th paragraph of her article that Powe gets around to mentioning the Wheeler lawsuit. And it's not until the 41st paragraph of her article that Powe mentions that "numerous public statements made by Wheeler appear to contradict key claims the former homicide detector alleged in the lawsuit he filed."
Shouldn't that be a bombshell article by itself instead of being deeply buried in another article? Or is Powe afraid toplay this up, since Wheeler has been such a key source for her in pushing the Rich conspiracies despite the fact that he has a history of making contradictory claims?
Given that the Trump White House has been brought into this via Wheeler's lawsuit, Powe and WND should admit any contact they might have had with Trump administration officials or with Butowsky to push this story. But they won't.
This is dishonest journalism in the extreme. Powe and WND know the jig is up and the story is dead -- collapsed under the weight of the bogus conspiracy theories they've heaped upon it -- but they refuse to honestly admit that to their readers. As far as they're concerned, the conspiracy must continue, and the collapse of the story is part of the conspiracy.
Apparently addicted to the conspiracy crack of the Obama birther stuff -- and conveniently ignoring how it made WND a journalistic laughingstock -- WND committed to the Seth Rich story. And it's making WND even more of a joke than it already is.
CNS' Bannister Is Mad Celebrities Invoked God to Praise McCain's Health Care Vote Topic: CNSNews.com
It seems CNSNews.com blogger Craig Bannister saw the petulant, butthurt reactions to John McCain voting against the Republican health care bill from his fellow CNS writers and said, "Hold my beer."
In a July 28 post, Bannister actually complains that "liberal Hollywood celebrities" are invoking God to praise McCain's vote:
Liberal Hollywood celebrities are showering Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) with love for casting a decisive vote as one of three Republican Senators who derailed a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act health care law (Obamacare).
Rosie O’Donnell and Cher actually invoked God to bless McCain for turning on his party and voting against the bill to undo major financial burdens and requirements mandated by Obamacare.
McCain returned to Congress after being diagnosed with a deadly form of brain cancer to cast the deciding vote in a 49-51 loss for Republicans.
Rob Reiner and Elizabeth Banks hailed McCain as a “hero,” while other liberal celebrities heaped gratitude and respect on the Republican who voted their way.
The headline on Bannister's post reads, "Hollywood Invokes ‘God’ to ‘Bless’ John McCain for Saving Obamacare." Yes, "God" is in scare quotes, as if to claim Bannister's God would never have voted to keep health insurance for millions of Americans.
Al Gore Derangement Syndrome, Gina Loudon Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
If you can get beyond the irony of the title of Al Gore’s new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” you start to see the meager remnants of a man who once held some power and hoped to hold more.
Every morning, the shadow of a man named Al Gore has to wake up to Donald J. Trump as president. President Trump is even richer than Al Gore; he didn’t make it off the backs of lies and sheeple. And Trump is the most effective president, perhaps in U.S. history.
In a short six months, with little to no help from Congress, this president has managed to cut illegal immigration by 70 percent by the force of sheer will, catapult the stock market to all-time highs, open pipelines and create more than 1 million private-sector jobs, set virtually every economic indicator at an all-time high, change the Supreme Court back to reason for generations, and more.
President Trump is working to dismantle not only every policy lie that Al Gore ever helped to put in place, but this administration is single-handedly dismantling Gore’s lying mechanism and dissemination apparatus.
The failing New York Times will print any amount of crazy that Gore drools on it. What happens when it’s gone?
The fake news media will repeat Gore’s lies, make him look sane and logical and, most importantly, sell his baseless movies and books, which no one would see or read otherwise. How will Al Gore maintain his millions without them?
There is little more insulting to a man who has shrunk from relevance and power than being a smaller man in every way than your worst enemy. There is little more insulting and enraging than having someone like Donald Trump, who didn’t even need politics to have money, power and relevance that Al Gore so deeply desired, dismantle his entire house of cards without ever laying a hand on Gore. That is the worst kind of defeat. No wonder Al Gore is desperate.
On Aug. 18, an angry, defeated mob – composed of former journalist wannabes and people who just want to belong but aren’t smart enough to know how to be in demand – will rush to dutifully take in Gore’s film and pay for his jet fuel to emit more carbon in one trip than they will in their Priuses in a lifetime.
So at least Al isn’t alone in his last stand. He will go down with others.
MRC Attacks Ex-Fox News Host for Dissing Her Former Employer Topic: Media Research Center
It seems the Media Research Center will not allow anyone to criticize Fox News -- not even a longtime former employee who would know more about the channel's inner workings than anyone at the MRC.
And that explains the MRC's odd attacks on Alisyn Camerota, who left Fox News a couple years back to work for CNN.
On June 15, Tim Graham insisted that Camerota's upcoming novel about a morning news anchor working for an outlet called FAIR News was actually about "a CNN-like network" -- despite citing a description of the fictional network that includes "misogynistic emails from viewers, social-media backlashes and the cold shoulders of Brooklynites who despise the worldview of FAIR News" that sure sounds a lot like Fox News.
Because Graham makes up for in cattiness what he lacks in insightful media criticism, he makes sure to note that "Fox & Friends is usually higher-rated than New Day," the CNN show Camerota currently co-hosts.
After that, someone finally figured out which channel Camerota's book is about -- then attacked her for writing it. In a July 25 post, Alex Xenos complained that Camerota's book was taking a "jab at the network that made it possible for her to succeed," adding: "Camerota worked for the Fox News Channel for 16 years before moving to CNN in 2014. Yet, it is strange she is now constantly criticizing her old employer for skewing reporting when her new network's boss has all but declared war on the President."
Interesting that Xenos is effectively admitting Fox News is biased, but he won't hold it accountable for its bias the way he attacks CNN.
Brad Wilmouth followed up in a July 31 post, grousing that Camerota "has been showing this past week a greater willingness to criticize her former employer" in promoting her book, "which is a fictional work that is nevertheless based in part on her past experiences working as a FNC host for the weekend edition of Fox and Friends." Wilmouth further grumbled that Camerota was "going so far as to charge that her old FNC show 'unnecessarily stoked outrage' and 'took a really myopic view of, say, President Obama or the current administration.' She even suggested the show has sometimes been 'toxic" or 'foxic.'"
Rather than defend "Fox & Friends" -- something even he surely knows he cannot do with a straight face -- Wilmouth went on a Camerota-bashing tirade, declaring that "Since she joined CNN in 2014, Camerota has built up quite a record of left-leaning journalism and bias against the conservative point of view."
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.